Perspectives On Learning Disabilities: Biological, Cognitive, Contextual

Perspectives on Learning Disabilities This page intentionally left blank Perspectives on Learning Disabi Biological...

Author: Robert Sternberg | Louise Spear-swerling

58 downloads 1991 Views 29MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Perspectives on Learning Disabilities

This page intentionally left blank

Perspectives on Learning Disabi Biological, Cognitive, Contextual

EDITED BY

Louise Spear-Swerling

Westview Press A Member of the Perseus Bcysks Croup

Alt rights reserved. Pfintr?cl in the United States of girnerica. No part of this publication may be reprodtlceif or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mwhanical, including plmtocopy, recording, or any infamatim storage and retrieval system, withotit permission in writing from the publisher. Copyright Q 1999 by West-iiiew Press, A Mernt7er of the Perseus Books Group P~~blished in 2999 in tlw United Stater; of America by Wwtview Press, 5500 Central Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80301-2873; and in t11e United Kingdom by Westview Press, 112 Hid's Copse Road, Curnnor Hill, Qxft3rd OX2 "3JJ Librar~iof Congress Cataloging-in-PublicationData Perspectives on learning disabilities :biological, cognitive, roniextual i edited by Rctberl:j,Stemberg and Louise $$earSwerling p, cm, Includes bibliographical references and index, lSBN 0-8133-31757 (hardcover) LSBN U-8133-317&5 [papet-bxk) 2, Learning disabilities. 2. Learning disabled childrenEducation. 3. Learning disabilities-Phy sicrlc>gici71aspects. 4. Construclivism (Edt~cation) 5. Context effeds (Psycholow) in cl~ildren, l. Sternberg, ittc>bertJ. U. Spear-Swerling, Lc>uit;e, LC4704,F476 2999 371.92'6-dc21

98-11327 CTP

T11e paper used in this publication meets the reyuirements of the girnerican Nal.iclnal Standard for Pemanence of Paper-for Printed Library Materials 239.48-1984,

Contents

Foreruordr Meith E , Stanovich Preface Part One

Biological Approaches

I Genes, Environment, m d Reading Disabilities, Richard K. Olsun 2 The Biological Foundations of Developmental Dyslexia,

Elma I,. Crigo~nkr, 3 The Neuropsychological Basis of Learning Disabilities, George W. Hynd, Anralzda B. CILztun, and lennifer R. Hiemenz Part Two

Cognitive Approaches

4 Learning Disabilities in Perspective, Richard K. Wqgner and Tnmara Garun

5 Fhonologically Based Reading Disabilities: Toward a Coherent Theory of One Kind of Learning Disability, Joseplr K. T o r p e n 6 Reading Disabilities and the interventionist, Michael G. Pressley

7 Learning Disabilities: The Roads We Have Traveled and the Path to the Fukre, Linda S. Siegel 8 Developing Reading Fluency in Learning-Disabled Students, S. ltly Sanrztels

Part Three

Contextual Approaches

9 Learning Disabilities as Organizational Pathologies, Thornas M. Skrtic

10 Learning Disability: Issues of Representation, Power, and the Tvfedicalizatio~~ of School. Failure, Carol A, Christel.zs~~~

vii xiv

Confenis

vi

33 Can We Get 'T"herefrom Here? Learning Disabilities and

Future Education Policy, Lonist. Spm~Surctrling Part Four

250

Conclusions

12 Epilogue: %ward an Emerging Consensus About Learning Disabilities, Kobcrt f . Sftlr~zltrrrg

Abozdf the Editors and Contributors Index

277

Foreword

This volume makes a ti~selyappearance in the cheekered history of learning-disabilities research, As is well h o w n to researchers, the field of learning disabilities is 1itt-d with dead ends, false starts, pseucfoscience, m d fads. For decades the field rambled on from one incoherence to mother. Educational practices without intellectual foundation became e n t ~ n c h e d(see kider, 1992; and Stahl & Kuhn, 1995 for some cogent examples). "I%usthe field has been characterized by kvhat has been termed. a 'kart before the horse"" development (Stimovich, 1991). Educational pmctice simply took off befort- a thorou$ investigation of certain fotrndational assumptions had been carried out. In the 1990s, however, there is some reason for optimism: Hard-won progress has become etiscernible on the research front. This progress is still much more apparent in the research domain than in the domain of educational practiceall the more reason for the appearance of this vofume. It amply reflects how we have made our progress-by attacking this complex phenomenon at a variety of levels (biological, psychologicaI, social) and. by seeking converging trends, It is rare to see work from al) three perspectives brought together in the same volume. To see, for example, Grigorcnlso's s w m a r y of biological fowndat.inns, Torges e d s conceptualization of phonological reading disability Pressley's and Samuels" pprescriptions for education practice, ancl the trenchant social and nrganizational ecitiqztes of Christensen and Skrtic. The reader thus has an unusual opportunjty to see our collective progress and disagreements. It is of course by now a clich4 to say that learning disabilities can be studied f r m many different levels of analysis, For example, reading disability may be approached from the perspective of the neurophysioltrgist interested in brain processes; from the perspective of the cognitive psychologist interested in isolating information-processing functions that explain reading ability; and from the pmspective of the social-constructivist

theorist interested in how social strucbres define, support, and suppress certain literacy acts based on the social value assigned, to various activities. The issue of contention is whether the views der'bvisrg from the different perspectives can be tnfegv~rfed, Several chapters in this volume demonstrate that in the past tea years there has been a remarkable amount of convergmce of findings at the biological and cognitive levels. Integrating these findings with the pervective of the social constructivist has proven more difficuit. Nevertheless, Spear-Swerling and Pressley take some important steps in that direction, as does Sternberg in his epihtgue. I would like to encourage these efforts, and I see this volume as a contrib~~tor. Anyone familiar with the learning- and reading-djsabilities field is aware that we have made the fundamental error of turning the debate about levels of analysis into a zero-sum game where the assumption is that a gain for one framework somehow dimjnishes the respect given to another. Fsr many years, biological2y oriented theorists, information-processing theorists, and social-constructivist theorists did not talk with each other; the various explanatory hamworks ofien treat each other as hostile competiaors. In contrast, the chapters by Olson, Hynd and colleagw" and Torgesen amply jllustrate the progress h t can be made when cross-talk betwcm the cowitive and hioiogical researchers is encouraged. Nevert.Eteless, it is still not u ~ ~ c r n n rto t osee ~ ~inappropriate hostility tow a d neurologicd findings in some parts of the reading-research cornmlanity, The motivatim to counter neurological findings often reflects the fear that happmpriate conclusions &out causation will be reached. Critics argue that neurologcal explanations are often rrristakenly seen as specifying causation, when in many cases they are ambiguous on this issue, But note that the right course for critics of ne~trologicalb d i n g s is not to try to delzy the neuroIogical differences but instead to questhn their interpretaticm in a causal model. theorist causally links a iJikcwise, WSle11 an information-processprocess such as phonological codjng hifit). to reading skill, what is redly being said is that phonological cofing has been ietentified as a pmxilml cause of reading-ability differences (see Gotrgh Rr Turner, 2986); in most cases, we do not know how the phonoiogical differences arose, t n t e ~ s t in&, an identified difference in brain structure, although a little more distal, is still in some sense a prsxhal cause because the origh of the brain-structure difference is ofien itself unhown-being some complex combination of genetic stnacture (see Olsm" chapter) and a multitude ol environfnental experiences (agaiin, see Olson's chapter) that arc in part a function of how the social milieu reacts to the brain differences as they manifest at the behaviaraj level. And here, of course, is where socioconstructivist views c m e in.

Brain diffe~ncesmay exist that cause functicmai processing variations of the type related to school and academic behavior, but the socioconstructivist perspecthe emphasizs that the context in which the differential behavioral outcomes occur and how tbese differences are interpreted by society can have enormous consequences for children (see Christensen" chapter), frt a discussion of Matthew effects in education (Stanovich, 1986), that is, poor-get-poorer effects in reading achievement, I outlhed how certajn sncial strwchares can set up particularly bad interactions between the processing abilities with whifh a child approaches the task of reading and the educational milieu in which those abilities will be evaluated. Two examples that I employed were (I) ability grouging withh classrooms and schools and (2) political and social, structures that dictate p o m r educational environmcmts for the ecmmicaily disadvantaged. Both social policies ensure that it is just those children who are at risk for school difficulty who are provided with suboptimal educational resources, a fnrther examgle, consider the work of Stevenson m d his colleagues (Stevenson, Stigler, Lee, Luckr, Mitamura, & Hsu, 1985; Uttal, Lttmmis, & Stevenson, 1988) on crass-culhral differences in educational achievement. His samples of Japanese and Taiwanese childre11 outperiorrned his American sample, particularly in the area of mathematics; yet basic fnformation-pmcessing dgfercsnces, at least of the type ~ v e a i e dby common psychometric instrumrnts, were virtualfy nonexistmt. One looks to djNerences in cultural and school contexts for the explanation of the differential performance. Thus, socioconstructivist, or interactionist perspectives (see SpearSwerXing & Stemberg, 1996) have helped, us view leaming disabilities from a broader perspective than woutd have been possible if we reli@d sdely 811 neurological perspectives. Similarly, it is well known that via, cognitive and. neuropsychological processing analyses, (1) extensive progrt7lss has been made in linking word-~cognitimproblems to processing difficdies in the phonological domain (see the Siegel, Torgesen, and Wagner and Garm chapters); (2) same of the more distal causes oi these prcrximal diff-icultics have begun to be identified (see ail of the chapters in Part 1);and (3) intervezztion methods based on this functional pmcessing difference have met with some success, but we still have much to learn about remediating the most severe. cases of reading disf-ability(see chapters by Qlsoz~,Pressley Siegel, m d Torgesen). Perspectkes are not monolithic. Sometimes they do not automatically embociy the assumptions that we so readily assrtme. Take as an example Ehri,'s (1987, 1995) work on how howledge of spelling patterns allows children to gain awareness of phonological distinctions. Her work may well be identif-ied with fie information-processing framework, particularly because it shares the anaiytic bias of that frmework. But in a paper

on the genesis of reading disability published in the Jvunlal q f Learni~2g Disubilifks, Ehri (1989) argued that the distd cause of the orthographic

and phonological processing differences that she identifes is Lalrnost entimly instructional, and she explicitly rejects approa&ehat emphasize inherent newological djfkrences as a djstal cause. Her theoretical stance thus shows &at there is not necessarily a comectian bemeen the analytic h c t i o n a t approach and the endorsement of purely biologicat distal causes of rc.ading disability Or consider the Colorado hading Project m d the Ol.son group" work on the best way to pmsent the reader-generated feedback in their cornputer-aided reading system (Qlson & Wise, 1992; Whe & Uson, 1,995). Much of the theoretical foundation for this WO& agairt reflects the information-processint=perspective. Rut ccmsider some of the other properties of the Qlson group's compute~aidedreading techiques. They emphasize the reading of whole texts, and the presence of reader-generated help in the form of spoken words in the text allows older readers to read age-appropriate materials. 'Thus, this ecfucational innovation had a concern for presenting cctherent language to readers m d a concern for the sources of some ol the motivaticlnal and self-esteem problems that are present in m m y o:lder less-skilled readers. 'These concerns are not commonly ass~liatedwith the information-processjng framework, but the work of the Olson group cleady demonstrates that it is not antithetical to this frmework. As a final exmple, consider me interestirrg finding discussed by Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Fletcher, and Escdar (1990). It appears that when epidmiologicafly based saxnpling methods and regrcssjon-based stat&tical det-initims are used, the ratio of boys to girls in a sample of dyslexic children is much lower than the ratio that characterizes school- and clhicbased samples. This evid,en,ce of differcntiai sex ratios depelrding upon the source of the classification should, l: submit, be of htense interest to searchers using a socicrcmstructivi& perspective to understand h w disabilities are partially cultural constructs. The lessm taught by this example is that evidence deriving from one framework can be of utility to a dif ewnt research perspective even when workers within the two frameworks are not cmsciausly attempthg to interact. In the complex community of scholars and teachers concerned with learning disabilities, there no doubt exist numerous obstacles to paradigm, integration and collaboration. It may be cliificult- for prartitioners, scfiool administrators, and curriculum representatives not to take sides in paracfigm disputes relevant to educational, social, and political, posjtions that have already bem staked out. Rut one service that the research community can provide, surely, is a context for a more djspassimate and opm-minded consideration of existing approaches to

understmeiing learning liisabilities. This volume contributes immensely to this goal. Several chapters rightly warn the reader that the term learni~zgdisabilities is a confusing mix of scientific theory political advocacy, and serviced&very convenience (see particulariy che chapters b y Torgesen and b y Wagner and G a m ) , and thus the domain in which the km is used must always be kept in mind. For example, Torgesen warns that ""the concept of iearning disabilities, from a scientific point of view, ir; not thaterled by our current inahiliw to show that a majority of schd-identified LD chiIdren have ilntrinsic cognitive limitations rczsulting from neurological impairment. Historically, it is h o s t certainly true that the field of k m ing disabilities as a sociailpoiit.ical movement has overgekzeralizeu' the condisabilities in order to create improved education opporcept of learni~~g tunities for the largest pssible nurnber of childrc3n." Wagner and Garorl reiterate this warning by conjecturing that less than 3 percent of learningdisabled children will meet medical-mtdel criteria-vastly less fim the 20-30 percelzt estimates that educational persomel concerned wi& service delivery advocate. X worried about just these innplications over a decade ago when :lwarned fiat ""reading ability foms a continumm, and the farther up on it the poor reader resides, the less )iEte:Lyit i s that he/she will be characterized by a qualitatively different syndrome. Logically the wider the net that is cast by the term reading disabitity the vagucr the term will become, and the difficulties in distinguishing poor-reading children with the label from those who do not carry it will increasef' (Stmovich, 1986, pp. H M S ) . At the time, my fioughts on the matter cmtair.red a, large dose of speulation, but nokv, as the chapters in this vctfdz'snbilify c m be guided by ume illustrate, our use of the term. Ieanzi~z~~ m w h more rigorous scientific evidence. The uncertainty that remains is whether the field will choose to use that evidence. flinalk, it must be adrnitted that much of the progress in our field has y type of ""negative'" progress. W ~ a It mean is that we have spent rnuch research effort simpy faSsi(-ying earlier assumptions about learning disabilities that had becom mquestimed background assumptions of the field. Much of this ""negative progress'kork is well rep~f3serlted i.n this volumc. Most notable (see the Siegel chapter) i s work in the past decade indicating that the bask assumption that discrepancies between ir7telligence and achievement demartlated a neurological and cognitively distinct group of poor learrzers is questionable (see Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shankweilctr, Katz, Liberman, Stuebing, Francis, Fowler, & Shaywitz, 19534;Francis, Shaywitz, Shebing, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1996; Stanovich 8r: Siegel, 1994).This work has begun to cause a conceptlaai revolution in the leamhg-disabilities field (see Spear-Swerling chapter and Stanouich, 1996).Similar& unsettling have been the empirical ilndications

xii

Foreword

mentioned previously that long-standing assumptions &out gender ratios of Iearning disabiIities (see Shaywitz et al., 1,990) and about Che assumed dlscrclteness of learnkg disabilities (see Wagner and Garm chapters) are incorrect. This work on the fundamental characteristics of learnkg disat?ilities has laid the foundation for a rnorc scientific model mencumbered by mvcrified assurmptions carried over from the field's service-dehery function-a function, as many contributors note, that is often at odds with the scientif.icunderstandkg of learning disabilities.

References Ehri, L. C. (198'7). Learning to read and spell words. Jozrmnlof ReaszAilzg Beft~viol;19, 5-31. Ehri, L. C. (1989). The development of spelling knowledge and its roXe in reading acquisititic~nand reading disability. jourrlal of learning Disabilities, 22, 356-365. Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. lournnl of Reswrc.t.12in Rendi~lg,lt7,11&125. FXetcher, J, M,, Sl~aywitz,S. E,, Shankweileu; D., Katz, L., Liberman, I., Stuebing, K., Francis, D, J., Fowler, A., &r Shaywitz, B. A, (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Camparisom of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Jozrmal c$ Educational' Psyci'lalogy, 86,6-23. Francis, D, J., Shaywitz, S, E., StuAing, K,, Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Development lag versus deficit mc>delsof reading disability: A longihdinal, individual growth curves analysis. jara?-rzal c$ Edueatiotzal Psychofogy, 88, 3-1 7. Cough, P, B., & Tunmer, W E. (19%). Dectding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7f l),6-1 Q. Qlson, R, K., & Wise, B. W. (1992). Reading on the cc>mputerwith orthographic JozkmaE, 4, and speech feedback, Rending and Wrili~zg:An Irzfenl'iscl'pli~~nry 10'7-1 44. Shaywitz, S. E*, Shaywitz, B, A., Fletcheu; J, M,, & Exicohar, M. B., (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls. Journal of llze American Medical Associat.io~z,264,99%1002. Snider; V. E. (1992, Jan/Feb). Learning styles and learning to read: A critique. Remedial nlzd Speci~lEdzimibiol~,23(4), &18,30-33, Spear-SwerXing, L., & Stemberg, 8.1, (1996). Off track: Wfzelz poor reaclszrs become Boulder, CO: Westview Press. " l m r f ~ i ~dz'sabti3d. tg Stahl, S, A., & Muhn, M, (1995). Does whole language or instruction matched to learning styles help children learn to read? School' Psyckrology Reviexu, 24, 39-04. Stanovich, K. E-.(19%). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual diffe~neesin the acquisititic~nof literacy, Re~di~zg Reseerrcfl Qunrferly, 24, 36040'7. Stanovich, K. E, (1991). Discwpmey definiltic~nsof wading disability: Has intelligence l& us astray? Reading Research Qzlarferly,226,7-29.

Stanovich, K. E. (1996).Toward a more inclusive definition of dyslexia. Qsfexia, 2,154-1 66, Stano>vich,K. E., & SiegeX, 1,. S. (19"34 The phenot-ypic gerfc>rmancegrc>fiifeof reading-disabled children: A regression-based test of the phonological-care variable-difference model. lournlrl o$Edzica:utionnlPsyel~afogy,86,2453.. Stevenson, H. W., Stiglert1, W., Lee, S. U,,tucker, G, W., Kitamura, S,, & Hsu, Cl. C. (1985). Cognitive performance and academic achievement of Japanese, Ghin e x , and American children. CfziEd &veloi9m~nl.,56,718-'734. Uttaf, U. H., Lummis, M., & Stevenson, H. W. (1988).t o w and high mathematics achievement in Japanese, Chinese, and American elementary-sctroc~lchildren. Der~eloprrzentnlPsyciltoEogy, 24,335-342, Wig, B. W, (4r Olscm, R. K. (1995). Computer-based phunulc>gicalawareness and reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 45,99--122,

This page intentionally left blank

Preface The goal of this book is to present alternative perspectives on learning disabil,ities, concentrating on what we believe to be the thsce most promishg and widely adopted: biologicat, cognitive, m d contextual, Obviously, these perspectives are not the only ones theorists and practitioners have on learning disabitities; nor are they mutuaw exclusive. Ch the contrary, most experts view learning disailities as phmornena that can be understood at multiple levels, including the three emphasized in this volume. The book was written with several different audiences in mhd: students, scholars, practitimers, and parents of sbdents with learning disf-abilities. Authors were asked to write at a level that would be accessible to the lay reader. At the same time, s m e of the concepts are technical, and there is no way around the clear expression that sometimes =quires the use of apprr>l?"iate technical terms. We believe the book will serve a useful function h r individual readers and for courses with the goal of conveying to studtrnts the etiversity of perspectives that constitute the field of lcarning &&%ties today There are many books today that deal in one way or another with g disabifities, and we bope that our book occupies a mique niche in its merger of several characteristics: (1)the presentation in a single volume of three smetirnes d.ivergistg perspectives; (2) the selection of individuals who are world-renovvned for their expertise in rep~sentingthese perspectives; (3)a level of presentation that is accessible m d useful to readers with a dkersity of backgmunds; (4) a balance in presentation oi theory =search, and suggestions for practice that will make tke book appealing to people with d i f f c ~ n needs; t and @) an attempt to provi,de in the book only seriously thought-out scholarly positions rather than the sometimes mindless "hypef9that one sometimes finds in the field and that represents personal opinions that seem to be backed by neither theory nor data nor even any remotdy rational argument, Although the book is diwided into parts that =present the alternatives in perspective previously mentioned-biological, cognitive, and contextual-they ma)i be read in any order. Similarly, the chapters within a part may be read in any order. In any case, many chapter authors camect two

or even all three of these perspectives, Eurths, the number of chapters in each part of the book reflects the number of authors cont-acted who actually provided chapters rather than the number of individuals from each perspective who we^ invited to contribute.. We are gratefu( to Dean Birkenkamp, who originaily contracted the book for Westview, and to Cathy MurphJi, our current editor at Westview, fnr their support of the project, and to Marcus Blzggs fctr his continuifig support trhrotlghout this and other projects. W also l-hank our students and colkagues who have enabled us to develop and.expilore uur i n t e ~ s t in learning disabilities. Robert Stembe%%contribution to editing the vofume was supported in part by grants (R286R500Qf and R206A79001) from the Javits Program of the U,S. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Robert J. Sternberg Loz~iseSpetlr-Sruerli~

PART ONE

Biological Approaches

This page intentionally left blank

Genes, Environment, and Reading Disabilities

First, what is the nature (cause or causes) of learning disabilities? The answer t~ this initial organizing question for the book is addrttssed in this chapter from a behavioral-genetic perspective on readi"g disability, It will be shown that readjng disability often tends to run in families. More comp"fli11g evieience from identical and fraternal twins shows that the familial, pattern of translnission is clue to both genetic factors and sharediarnily envimment. Second, how are reading d.isabilities most effectively disposed? This question is a d k s s e d from both a behwinral-gmetic and medical-gelzetic perspective. It will be shown that some component skills in reading have stronger gcnetic influences &an otlners and.that the degree of genetic influence may vary depending on characteristics such as disabled readers' I@, phondogical decoding, and age. Current evidcnce from analyses of disabled. readers9UNA suggests the future use of genetic markers and ultimately spe"fic genedor the early diagnosis of risk for reading disabili.ty Third, hokv are reading disabiljties most eMectively remediated, and to what extent is remediation possible? It will be strongly argued that evidence for genetic influace, even very strong genetic infhence insome cases, should not discourage our best efforts in remediation, However, the genetic evidence and results from trainiatg studies suggest that some extraordinary environmental intervention may be needed for m n y disahled readers.

m e researcl1 reported from the Colorado twin and computer-remediation projects was

supported by WICHD grant: Nos. F-ID 11683and HD 22223.

Definition of "Reading Disabifity" Large diffemces in literacy among countries and many of the differences within. corntries are due to cultural variation in instmction a d readhe; practice. For example, m e elementary school h m jxnpoverished area of Denver recently showed. average reading scores at the 13th percent& on a naticmally normed test. Anotf-ter school in a morc. aMuent Denver neit;hborhood had average reading scorc3s above the 80th percenti.le. It is likely that most if not all of &is diffrerence in readkg performmce is due to environmmtal factors. A major factor in this exmple may be the high number of children in the low-performing schod whose fist l q t l a g e was not Engfish, 'l'he behaviord-genetic sbdies with families and twills discussed in this chapter have often limited the range of enviromme~ztdillhence on Eteracy bp exclrsdjng children from environments or I m p a g e backgrounds that would obviously constrain ~ a c i i n g develogmcynt. 'Ehese studies tend to ses adequate schooling (for normal readers), averlect djsithled ~ a d e r wi& age or above-average levels of socioccmomic status, and English as the first language. fndividuals with some obvious environmcyntal cause for a readi,ng disabiMy such as signs of brain d m a g e (i.e., seiztxrcs) or poor sehool attmdance are excluded. Cases with extremely low I(;!are also exchded. 'l'hus readirtg disabfiiv is mexpected from the individuays known environment: and general intelfigence. Hokvever, many relevant mpects of the family environment are not directly assessed h most studies, There may be considerable variatim in factors such as parental expectations regardin.g literacy, television viewing habits, book in the horn% childrc3nfs preliteracy activitier;,lead exposure, or s m e other envir ence that is shared by the Eamily but not always identified in behavioralge~zeticshdics. h d y s e s of data from ide~zticaland fratemd twin..; show that differences in shared-family environment do have a substantid influence on many cases of readh~gdisability Because reading ability in the population is nor~nallydistributed (Rodgers, 1983; Shaywitz, Escobar, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Makuch, 1992)1, the severity criterion for reading disability is arbitrary and varies samewhat across studks. The studks reviewed in this chapter qpically selected subjects who were more than about 1.5 standard.deviationsh e h the population mean (i.e., below the 10th percentite) fn their s a m p h g seas.

Rate of Familial Incidence and Prediction of GhiX&renfsReading Disabilities Evidence horn a number of family studies has shown that if a child is diagnosed with reading disability there is a higher than normd probability

Ccnr.s, Environmenl, and ReaAilzg Disnbilz'lies

5

that other family members will also be reading disabled (CS, Finucei, Guthrie, Childs, Abbey, &s Childs, 1976; Hallgren, l"300; Gilger, Pe~~niington, & DeFries, 1991; Vogler, DeFries, & Decker, 1985).The exact probability s e a s tc:,depend on a variety of factors, including the severity of the child"s readjX1g disability and the type of assessmel~tfor other family membersf rrezld.ing skills, For exampIe, when the parents-iagnosis for ~ading disability is based on scrlf-report, the famfiial incicience tends to oE be lower than when the djagnosis is based on the direct measureme~~t parents' reading skjlls (6ilg.r et al., 1991). :Most studics of familial incidence first diqnose a child with reading disability using a severity criterion that wodd identify 5-1 0 percent of children with normal, intelfigmce and educational opportunity. Then the investigators attcmpt to use a simitar severity criterion to diagnme reading disability in the parcm.t.s. Evidmee for the familid nat.ure of rcading disabiliw is based on parcntal rates that are substantially ahwe the 5-30 percent rate estimated for the population. Hol:tis Scarhomugh (personal communication, 1997) computed the average rate of reading clisability among parents across eight family studies that included, a total of 516 famifies. The rate acmss stuclies varied from 25 percent tc:,60 percent with a rnedian value of 37 percent. Thus all studies found rates fos reading disability among parents of reading-disabled children that were significantly higher than expected in the nmrmd population. The rnedian proportion of reading disability among fathers (46 percent) hvas slightly higher thm the median proportion among mothers (33percent), Results from these family studies suggest that evidence for p a n t s ' reading dis&ilities could be used to predict a greater than normal risk for their children. A few studies have attempted to directly estimate this prospective risk. Finucci, Gotthedson, and Chilcis (3985) found that of a special school for disabled readers when 115 parents who had atte~~ded they were children, 36 percent reported that at least one of their children was readh~gdisabled. Scarborough's (1990) study of children with one or two reading-disabl.ed p a n t s found that 31 percel~tof their second-grade children we= eventually identified as reading disabled by a e i r schools, W k n the diagnosis of ~ a d i n disability g was based m Scarborow"s extensive test results, which showed that reading was at least 1.5 stmdard deviations below the population mean, the rate was twice as high (62 percent). (A higher than school identificatim rate when chitdren are actually tested is a common result in large epidemiologieat studies [ll)tson, Forsberg, & Mse, 1994; Shaywitq Shaywitz, Fletcher, BE Escobar, 19901,) In contrast, 5carbomugh found that only 5 percent of children were reading disabled if both parents hvere n o r m l readers" h summaryf studies clearly show that parents' ~ a d i n disa:hilities g predict a higher than normal rate of reaeiing disabilities in their children

(3142 percent vs. 5-10 pertlent). Although p a m t s f readhg disabilities are not completely predictive of their children" readhg dis&ilities, the substantially greater risk at least warrants very close monitoring of their c h i l d ~ n ' sp r o g ~ s h s early lanpage and literacy devebgment. Evidence for the partial familial nature of reading distabilit)J is necessary but uot sufficient evidence for inferring genetic hfluence, because families also share their ewizonmmts. As discussed earZicr, mmt famffy studies attempt to elhinate obvious environn?em.t.al,risk .factors such as different native languages, low socioeconomic status, and unusually poor schooXli. Nevertheless, there could be a variety of Less obvious environmental risk factors associated with the reading disabilities of both parents and children. For example, parents with reading disability sornetimes express the ccmcem that they might environmcmtally transmit their negative attitudes about readislg to their children. The next section reviews results from behavioral-genetjc studies with twins that attempt to sepa"te the proporZional influences due to genes and shared-family en~rironment. Twin Studies of Genetic and Environmental

Influences on Reading Disabilities Twins who are raised together share their filmilJr envirmment. This is true for both mowzygotic (m) ""idientical" twins and &;zygotic (DZ) "lraternalf"twins. Hwever, M%: and same-sex UZ twin pairs differ markedly in their genetic similarity. NXZ: twins develop from the same sperm and egg and are therefore genetically identical. UZ,twins devell,~, &on? two different egg-sperm, con?binations asld share hall their normally segregating genes, on average (Plomin, &Fries, & McClearn, 3990). Ordinary siblings also share half their seg~gatinggenes, but their diffe~rztbisthdays may Iead to less shared-erzviromaent influence compared to M%: and DZ twins. If MZ Wirts share their reading disabili_ties sipificmtly more often than same-sex DZ twins, it is assumed that the greater genetic similarity of M25 twins is respctnsible. Of course, genes can be expressed only through their interaction with ent. This interartion begins with the complex process of embryological brain devclopmcnt and ultimately extelrds to genetic efiFects on the children's selection ol: their readjng environment. For exmple, genetic effects on early brain development ~ s u l t i n gin unusual difficufties in learning to read could ullimateb cause a child's fruslration with and avoidance of readhg practice.

Genes, Environment, and Reading Disabilities

7

In contrast, relative ease in learning to read due to favorable brain development could lead to much more reading practice and enjoyment of literature. Such child-selected environmental differences could have a strong impact on reading development. Because the cause of this environmental selection is genetic, behavioral-genetic analyses include any effects of this or any other genotype-environment correlation in their estimation of total genetic influence. Implications for the remediation of genetically influenced reading disabilities are considered in the final section of the chapter.

% i n Concordance Rates for Reading Disability Several early twin studies of reading disability found that MZ twin pairs shared their reading disabilities significantly more often than DZ twin pairs (Bakwin, 1973; Hallgren, 1950; Zerbin-Rudin, 1967). When an MZ or DZ twin pair shares a disorder, such as reading disability, diabetes, or schizophrenia, the twin pair is referred to as "concordant" for the disorder. If only one twin of a pair has the disorder, the pair is referred to as "discordant." In Hallgren's classic study, the concordance rate for MZ and DZ twins was 100 percent and 52 percent, respectively. This extreme result suggested that nearly all cases of reading disability are due to genetic factors. Other studies have reported smaller differences in MZ-DZ concordance rates, but with the exception of Stevenson, Graham, Friedman, and McLoughlin (1987), all find a sigruficantly higher concordance rate for MZ pairs (DeFries & Alarcon, 1996). The ascertainment of disabled readers in the early concordance studies may have been biased by a higher tendency to report concordant than discordant pairs (Harris, 1986). The ongoing Colorado twin study of reading disability reduces this potential referral bias by ascertaining reading-disabled twins in grades 3-12 from school performance records and then giving the twins an extensive battery of tests in the laboratory (DeFries, Filipek, Fulker, Olson, Pennington, Smith, & Wise, 1997). DeFries and Alarcon (1996) reported that the unbiased concordance rate for reading disability in this sample is currently 68 percent for 186 MZ pairs and 38 percent for 138 DZ pairs. This is a highly significant difference, but it is somewhat smaller than the extreme differences found in some earlier and potentially biased studies. Differences between MZ and DZ concordance rates can provide evidence for significant genetic etiology, but they do not provide precise estimations of the relative magnitude of genetic and environmental influences. Also, concordance rates are insensitive to the degree of twins' reading deficits below and above the severity criterion for a categorical

diaposis of ~ a d i l l tdisabftity. ; Mlhen ~ a e i i n gdisability is &fined as the lower 10 percent of the population in reading skills, there? is still a very large range of readislg deficit withln this group. Also, there is a large rmge of ~ a e i i n gability between the criterim level and the norm& mean. A regsessim analysis developed by DeFries and Hu:lker 0985) is sensitive to this variability above the criterion level. n e i r basic regression model yields direct estimates of the proportion of genetic influence on the disabled group's readhg deficit, Assessment of Genetic Inflzrcrtce from Cotwin Regressiort tn the Pupulafiorl M e a ~

I'he DeFries and Fulker (1985) analysis defhes ~aeiing-disabledtwins as those w l o falll below a selected severity criterion, usuaiily the lokver 10th pescentge relative to a normal sample of wins. :In this type of behavioral genetic analysis, twins that meet the selection criterion for mading disability are called ""proktands."h cases hvhere a twin pair is discordant for reading disability (me member of the pair is disabled and the other is not), the twin that does not meet the criterion fur reading disability is called the "cotwh." The DeFries and Fulker (1985) analysis compares the degree to which ~ a d i n gperformance of the MZ and Oil, cotwins Egresses toward the population man. 'The popuiatior~mean is deSined by the average performance level in a comparison sample of normal twins. Cotwins' rclgre* sitrn to the population mean is indicated by the m o u n t their scorlts rall above the criterion level for rcading disabfity, toward the populaticm mean. To aid in understanding how the malysis works, three extrenne examples of MZ and DZ cotwin rc-.grt?ssimare given that would indicate exclusive influence kom (I) genctic factors, (2) shared environmnt-, or (3)nonshared environment. If reading disabiliv is completely due to genetk influence, both members of the genetieally ider~ticlalM Z pairs would be affected probands: There woultd be no cotcvin ~gressionto the population man. Howeves, that result alone would ncrt prow a genetic influme because MZ twins also shim their family environment. A comparison must be made with D25 wins who also share their Ifamily environment but who share only half their segregating genes on average. If rclading disability were completely due to genetic influence, many of the genetic* dissiniiar DZ pairs would. have a cotwin that did not meet the selection fliterion. The expectsticm for complete genetic influence is that M;;I: t\i\rinsshow no regrcfssion and DZ cotwins regress hdlway to the population mean,on average. If reading disability were entirely due to shared-family environment, both MZ and DZ pairs would have two probaneis and no cotwin ~ g r e s -

Ccnr.s, Environmenl, and ReaAilzg Disnbilz'lies

9

sitrn tcr the mean. This is becaux both types of twin pairs share their family env Tl~e erne example is that if reading disability were due entirdy tcr some nmshared emironmcmtal factor, both M Z and DZ cotwins would be expected to average nearly complete rclgression to the population m a n , constrained only by the defhed rate of reading disability in the popdation. Nonshared enviro ental factors among twins codd include such things as selective gestational or birth problems, nonshared illnesses, or head injury Test error is also induded in behavioral-genetic estimates of nonshared environment, The actual pdterns of totwi;n regression to the mean for reading and related skills fall between the previous extreme examples and yield, proportional estimates of the balance of genetic (hig)' shared environment (c2,), and nonshared environment (e2g)influences. 'The subscript "g" for each of the thrctz estimates indicates their referace to the average gro~tp deficit, The estimates from these behavioral-gmetic analyses do not specify proportio~nalinfJuences for any indjvidzxal within the deviant group. When the DePries and Fulker (1985) regrcssim malysjs was recently applied to a compcwite measure of reading that combined the Peahody Individual Achievernetnt Tests (PIAT, h n n & Markwardt 1970) for reading comprehension, word recognition, and spefing, the estimated, proportion of genetic inffumce (i.e., heritability) on the gmup deficit was 56 percent, or hZg = ,565 with a standard error of -09 (DeFries & Alarcon, 1996).Thus there is a 95 percent probability that the true group for the compo"te PfAT measure of reading disability is between .38 and 34. It should be noted that this estimate for genetic innuence on the group deficit in readkg is specific: to the Colorado sampling cmstraints, Zf a broader range of reading envimnment (i.e., poor er-city schools) had been included in the sample, it is likelly that the inluierlce of shared emvironment would have been higher than genetic fxtors in the average group del'lcit. If the range of the twins' readh~genwimment had been m o constrained, ~ it. is likely that genetic imfluemce would have been higher. An average population estimate. of genetic influence m individual differences in a behavior is jointty influmced by the range of relevant genetic variation and by the range of rcjlevant etnviromental variation. Ges-zetie and E~vz'mnmentalIafluences an

S p e e i c Skills in Readr'fzgand La~zgrwge C)tson, Forsherg, and Wise (1994) exteneied the Dgries and Fulker (1985) genetic anaysit; to derive estimates of the proportinn of infiuetnces from genetic factors (kZg),shared-family envir ent (c'~), and nonshared environment (gig) for several separate reading and language skills.

Word Rec.

Spell

Comp.

FIGURE 1.l Percent of genetic, shared-enviroment, and nonshared-envircjnment: influences on disabled readers8group deficits in 13XATword recognition, spelling, and reading comprehensian.

Prohands (twins below fie 10th percentile) werl, separately selected for each of the PIAT tests of word recognition, speuing, and reading compre hensim that DeFries and Alarcon (1996) used in their composite measure. Prohand membership in the three dcrviant groups largety overlapped because of the positive correlations between the PIAT tests. FIowever, the correlations were far enough from 1 to allow for some differences in proband group membership and in average genetic influace across the tests. 'The results from the separate PXAT analyses are presented in Fjgurc 1.1.Both word recoslition and spellixrg had substantial and similarly high levels of genetic and shared-environmc?nt i~~fluence.. Mowever, br readj,ng comprehension, shared-environment. influence was high (52 percent) and genetic influence was low (27 perccnt). The specific vwabdary and world knowledge needed to ccnrectly answer fie PfAT comprehe~~sion questions may have been strongly influenced by the twinshshared school and home environmmt, In contrast, the rate of growth in word recognition and spelling appears to have been mom constrahed by gelretic factors. Which of- these rnensures is most approprjate for the diagnosis of reading disability? If the intercst is in reading disabilities with sipificant genetic fnflucnce, the wrd-=cognition and spellhg measures wotxld be most useful, Olson, Wise, Corners, Rack, and Fulker (2989) examhed genetic influences on gmup deficits in word copi it ion, phonolngical decoding (oral reading of: nonwords), orthographic codjng (selection of words from word-pseudohomophone pairs such as rain-rane), and a measure of phoneme wareness that was similar to Pig Latin. In this smdl twin ?-;am-

Ccnr.s, Environmenl, and ReaAilzg Disnbilz'lies

12

W Genetic M Shared E, tl$l Non Share

Word

Pho.

Rec,

,

Qdha, Phon, Code

Awr*

FIGURE 1.2 Percent of genetic, s h a r e d - e n v i r , and nonsharedenvironment influences on disabled readerskgroup deficits in PIAT word recognition, phonological decoding, odho>graphic:coding, and phoneme atuawness.

ple, there were significant genetic contributions to the group deficits in word recognition, phonological decodhg, and phoneme awareness but not in orthographic coding. It was argued that deficits in the orthographic task may l~avebeen mow irrflwnced by shared-cmvirmment differences in prjnt e x p o s e (Stanovich and West, 1989).However, in larger twi.n samples malyzed by Olson et al. (1994) and in more recent unpublished analyses, it is clear that there is also substmtial genetic influence orz the group deficit in orthographic coding. The current estimated levels of gmetic influence depend somewhat on the criteria for pmband selection. 7'heestinlates in Figure 1.2 arc. based on the selection of probands orz the individual variables regardless of theis school history for readmg disiability. W k n pmband selection is further constrained by school history as in DeFries and Ahxon (19961, genetic influence is about 10-15 percelrtage points higher and shared-envirtmment influence is about 10-15 percentage points lower. It is not clear which approach is most appropriate, so the most conservative approach for gerzetic hfluence is used here. Current esthates of genetic ixrnuence are substantial and statistically sipificant for p u p dt;ficits (-1.5 5D [stmdard deviation]) in PIAT word recognition (204 bGZ, 151 DZ pairs), phonological decoding (187 MZ, 124 DZ pairs), orthographic codhg (162 M%;,114 DZ pairs), and phoneme marmess (137&KZ, 101 DZ pairs). It appears that genetic fnfluence ~ & t be somebvhat higher for pho~zolagicaldecoding ancl phoneme awareness conpaed to word recopition md, orthogmphjc coding, but the contrilsts are not. stdtistkdly sipificmt. ?%tr influence of shared e n v h

tistically sipificant for all variables except phoneme awarclness. Sharedenvironment hfluence is higher for the g r o v deficit in wrd reco@tiorz conpaed to tlne other varia:bles, This may reflect a greater role fm sharedw i m n m e n t differmces in print exposure in the development of word recognition. X"honologica1skills and the high precision of ort;hographic reprcsentiltions required. for correct responses in the orthographic choice task appear to be less influenced by shared env Caya,nl Datta, Castles, and Olsclln (1.997) noted &at &e heribbiity estimates for word recoetion md,pI-imolog-icaldecoding seem to depend on whether fluency is included as a part of the assmsmmt. An experjmmtal measure of time-limikd wosd ~ c o g n i t i m(correct rrzspomes had to be initiated withixl two seconds) yielded a higher heritability estimate for the group deficit (hZg= .55; c', = .40 ) compared to the untimed PIAT test of -44; c; = .47). Similarly, the high heritability and low shared-envi t estimates for phonological decoding in Figure 1.2 (hZg= .58; cZg= 2 8 ) are based on deficits in the combined z scores for percent c o r ~ cand t latency on corrcct trials. fn comparison, heritabilily for Che percent of nonwords read correctly was much lower and shared. environment was higher (hZg= .41; cZg= .45). It seems that shared environment plays a stronger role in lirniting djsabled readers' accuracy jn word recognition and phonological decoding, w h t ~ a deficib h accuracy and flus ency com:bined are relatively more influenced by g e n e ~ factors. c If the diagnosis of geaeticdly based disabilities in word recognition and pbmological decoding is a goal, measures of speed should be includcd in tJle test ba.ttery. The implicatir,n of these results for the ~mediatjonof reading disabilities is comidercd in the fha1 section of the chapter. GeneE.;icCovarz'aticn~z and Irzdiependenee Across Maszsves Are the same genes hvolved in disabled readerskorrelated deficits h word recognition, phonological decoding, d o g r a p h i c coeSing, and phoneme awareness? The answer is partly yes and partly no. Olson and colleagues (1994) reported significant genetic covariance among the measures in bivariate exknsims of fie UeFries and Futker (1985) twin regression modeX. Gayan and Olsnn (1997) performd a different type ol genetic andysis to estimate specific and shared genetic in.fluences for individual differences on the measures. The results showed a common genetic hfiuence across all measuses, consistent wit-h the earlier results horn bivariatc analyses of grczup deficits. However, there were also specific, nonshared genetic influences for Fndividual differences in each of the measures. This sig~nil.'icantindependent genetic variance for each of the measures indicates that differences in disabled readers"rofiles of componmt ~ a d i n and g language skills may have a partly genetic basis.

Ccnr.s, Environmenl, and ReaAilzg Disnbilz'lies

Corzoerging ata Genetic ZFzfl"umcefor I~dividzkalDisabled Readers It is important to reiterate that the previously presented behawioral-genctic twin analyses do not provide informdim about the balance of genetic and envirmmntaj influences on any individual with reading disability. These studies only esthate the werage relative influences for the reading-disabled group, Within the group, some disabled readers' deficits may be primarily due to their genes, some may be prinrarily due to s h w d envirtmment, and some may he due to a closer to equai influence fson both fatms. However, we can look for interactions m o n g other subject variables and the average degree of heritability for reading deficits. If significant interactions are found, this informatim could be used to make more accz~rateprobability statements about the degree of gcrnetic etiology for an individual" reading disabiliv* Gayan, flatta, Castles, and OLson (1997) found that when they assessed the heritability for the disabIed group's deficit in PIAT word recognition, depending on the probands"eve1 of phonological decod.in.g, probands with relatively low phonological decoding had a sipificantly h@er average genetic inhence on their deficit in FIAT' word recog~nitioncomp a d to probands with relatkely high phonological decoding. They suggested that relatively severe deficits in phonological decoding are stmngly kfluet~cedby genetic factors that place a genetically based constraht on the growth of word, recognition, Extremely poor phonological decoding w u l d lead to frequent decoding errors when childrrn fndependently attcnnpt to read unfamiliar printed words. In cont.rast, &Sabled readers with relatively good phonological decoding comparcd to their word rcrccrgl-rition may have deficits in word =cognition that are more due to shared-envirol~metntdeficits in print exposure. Olson, Forsberg, Gayan, m d DeFrics (inpress) proposed a similar explanation for an apparent difference in genetic influence on deficits in word recognition, dependimg on subjects' ffull-scale IQ scores. In this analysis, subjects with relatively high Q s comparcd to their word recognition had a strctnger average gmetic iz~fluence.Shartrd environment was a relatively stronger influence for subjects whose IQ scores were lower (see Figure 1.3). Olson and colleag~lessuggested that a poor home and educationai environment c o d be jointly reqonsible for the concurrent expression of low IQ and low word rwognition. In contrast, disabled readers with higher IQ scores we= more likely to have a relatively good educatic,nat envirmment, and their faiture in reading would be more likely due to genetic constrahts. The final example of individual variation in genetic influence is a fascinatingly complex interaction " o m e n genetic influence, age, and mea-

Low IQ

Mid IQ

High IQ

FIGURE 1.3 Percent of genetic, shared-environmentI and nonsharedenvironmrtnt infiuences on disabled readers' group deficits in word recognition acrclss three Xevets of WXSC-R IQ.

sures of readhg and spefling ~ p o r t e dby DeFries, Atarcon, and C)lsm f1997). They found that genetic influence on PIAT word-recognition deficits tends to decline across the eight-twenty-year age range of the cross-sectional Colorado ttzr111 study, whereas genetic influence on PUT spelljng deSicits tends to increase with age. It was suggested that correct reading of the high-level. items in the PXAT word-recognition test was more dependent cm m o u n t of print exposm compared to the shorter, mare phonologicalfy regular, and orally familiar itelns at lower levels of the test, h contrast, the higher-level spelling items in the PIAT test may demand a level of precision in subjects' orthographic represatations that is m r e constrained by genetic factors, The previous three e x a q l e s indicate that estimates of the l&eLy proportional genetic influence on individual disabled readersf reading and spellhg deficits c m be hproved &rough howledge about other sub~ect characteristics. Howcveq a direct andysis of disabtd readas' l l N A may ultknatek p v i d e much more preeise knowledge about likely genetric influe~nceson m individual"^ reading dkabihties. %me progress toward Chis goal has already been made, Cardm, Smifi, hiker, ton, & DeFries (1994) analyzed the DNA from sam Colorado sbdy and from an independent samplc of extended families Chat included several disabled readers. 'They found &at in both samples, there idace for the hkage cJf many cases of reading disability systern) region of chromosome 6. This appare~~t linkage needs to be replicated inadditional samples before we c m have strong confidmce in its valicfity and have a g o d estimato of the proportrim of reading disabilities that m y be inftuanced by the ge~neor gales inthis area.

Ccnr.s, Environmenl, and ReaAilzg Disnbilz'lies

15

Currmt linkage anatyses of a nc;w set of DZ wins from the Colorado study suggest that the results of the earlier shdy will be replicakd and that the strongest linkage to this area is for probmds with the most sevesc deficits in orthographic coding, phonological decoding, m d phoneme waeness. At least one independe~~t shdy has reported lmkage to a similar region of chromosome 6 (Grigorenko, M o d , Meyer, Hart? Speed, Shuster, & Pauls, 1997). Ihe strongest linkage in this region was for deficits in a reading-related measurc? of phoneme awareness. Deficits in word recog~~itim we= more strongly linked to a region on the short a m of chromosome 15, Ihe authors argued that deficits in component skills in reading m d retated langwge processes are limked to different. ~ g i o n of s the gel~ome.'This is certainly passibte in view of the partially irtdcyendent gttnetic effects found tJlrozagh behwioral-gene~cmalyses for diffe~ntcompcrnmt rc-tadingskills (Gaym 8s a s o n , 1997). However, it appears from the report by Crigore~~fecQ m d colleagues that Li!fe~t.r.lces in the strcngth of linkage for phoneme awareness and word ecopition would not be sipificant at either l ~ u s . disCardon m d others (1994) did not lind significant linkage fnr ~ a d i n g abjliw on chromosome 15, but an earlier study by Smith, Gmberling, Pennington. and Lubs (IS31did h d sipificant linkage here. It is not en~rely s~trprising&at diflferent linkages emerge in dillerefit samples. It seems likely that there will be morc than me i q o r t a n t genetic conthbution to reading disabF1i.ty across thr population (Smi*, Khberlhg, & Pemington, 1991).Mole-genarne scms made possible by the hurnm gelIolBe project may help locate several additimd regions of the gmome that accomt for some sipificant proportion of genetieaily influenced reading disatnilities. Following the co~~fimation of llirrkage for ~ a d i n g disability to t-he HLA region of chmmosome 6 and the short arm of chromosome 15, a search through the ~ 1 l i o nof s be undertakm to s base pairs in these ~ g i o n must find the ge~~e($ rapm"ib,e, jdentify t-he pmtein(s) that are coded by the gcnejs), and ultimately tmderstand the developmental pathway from gene(" to brain structure and fmctictn that lead to geneticaily based reading disabilities. hior to our contpete understanding of the specif:ic:gene(s) and their developmntal pathway, it may soon be possible to use reliable DNA markers that arc. close enougk tcr the ~spc-lnsiblegenes to identify children MIho are at.a bigh genetically b a s d risk for reading disabiiity:'This information could then be used to begh preventative measures beforc the child experimces reading failure and fmsltration in school,

Implications of Rehaviarat-Genetic and Linkage Results for Education Educators are d e n wary of behavioral-genetic studies. They may be concerned that evidence fnr genetic influmce wilt be mistakenly used to account for the p a r average reading performance of disaclvantaged racial

or ethnic groups. They may also be concerned that evidmce for gmetic hfluence will be used as m excuse for educatio~zalpolicymakers to give up on disabled readers, assumjng that their probltzms with reading are absolutely determhed by their gmes and withnut hope for remediation. It m s t be e m p h i z e d that these are clear mistakes in the hterpretation of the evidence for genetic influences on rcadhg disabilities. First, the behavioral-genetic evidence has nothing to say about differences in reading performance between diffe~rztracial or et-hnie groups because it is impossible to disentangle the efkcts of the substantial enviental diffemces between these groups (e.g., different dialect, different: first language, socioeconomic level, etc.). Second, even if the genetjc influence on some individual reading disabilities proves to be very strtmg, this only implies that some extraordinary environmental inter~rezztionmay be required. Someday this htervention may be partly biological, p e h p s through the manipulation of neural transmitters, as h the successful treatment of some attention-deficit disorders with Ritalin. At present, the behavioral gezzetic evidence has some important implications for educational policy (Ine implication is that some childrc?n may be poor readers in spite of their parelztshd schools>r~vision of an e~zvironmentthat is quite adequate fos reading development in normal children. Many parents and their childrm with reading disability feel a high level of guilt about the problem, The parents m y feel that they have f d e d to provide their childrrzn with a "good" environment for rezlding development. Whereas this may be true in srrme cases of reading disability, it is clear that there are strong gelzetic hfluences in many cases. Mmy parelzts are often quite relieved when they learn that the prOblern may have originated in their genetic makeup rather than in their failure to provide a goad environment for their childre~z. .A '"good" or '"nomal" mvim ent for readjng developmnt may not be neady enough for same c h i t d ~ ntc:,reach a hlnctional and enjoyabte level of literacy The direct manipulation of brain processes through medical. intervation is a future possi:biliW but we must rely on our best educational efforts n w . 'I'hese efforts may inctude special typemf prermding and early rcading instrudion and they may also wed to include a significantly greater arnollnt and intensiv of accurate reading practjce to compensate for some disabled reatlers%iological liabilities. Some of this additional support might be efficiently provided through computer.based exercises and reading practice (Wise & OIson, 1995). The behavioral-genetic evidence can help parents and educators uneierstand why this extra eMart is rreedcd far many children with reading disability. I will close the chapter with s m reflections on haw results from recent trahing studies with disabted ~ a c l e rmay s be ~ l a t e d tc:,some of the

Ccnr.s, Environmenl, and ReaAilzg Disnbilz'lies

17

genetic influences that have been described. Recall that ofie likely pathway for genetic inftuence inmany chil,drem is e d y fail~trem d fmstra.t.ion with reading m d a subsequent low level of readjng practice. Thus some c h i l h n may be inilcially slowed in their rc.adi11g d"ve1opment because of prior biological m d emvisnn,menl.al cmstrajnts, and Chcis rate of g r w t h is slowed further by the avoidance of rcading in favor of more enjoyable and less fmstrating activities. htervmtions that provide well-moti\iated, structured, and accwate reading practice m y thewfore show sjgnificant improvement for many disabled readers, h~cludingthose who get oif to a bad start because of negathe genetic influace. The berlef ts of structured and accurate readjng practice for djsablcd readers in the schools were clearly shown in a study by Wise and Olson (1995). Children in the second to fifth grades who were in the lower 10 percent of their class in wnrd =cognition were trained for a h& how each day over a semester, for a total of twenty-five hours. This training wrurred during times that the children wutd otherwise be im their regular rcadhg class. A eomrnnn core ol two djfferent training programs described iurther on included the reading of interestkg stories on the computer. The stories were selected so that most of their words were not too .far beyond the child's reading level. Accurate wading of djfficdt wnrds was suppmted by synthetic speech when children tasgcted the words with a mouse. This structurt-d reading experience resulted in an average gain over the semester of about ten standard-score points on several measures of word r e c v i t i m . This was an impressive improvement for these children duril^lg a relatively hrief training period, although most were still well below the mem for their class, Our observations %ggcrsted that the a m m t of accurate reaiding during the training periods was substantially greater than most of these disabted rttatlers would have experienced in their regular reading class. Unfortunately, follow-up testing one and two years after the end of trahing indicated that subjects"rcrwth rate in word recognition returned to thc slow rate experienced before training (Clflson,Wise, Ring, & Johnson, 1997). Their struchred practjce in accurate readhg was clearly beneficial dufing training, but apparently it did not improve most cl-rildrcn's poor reading habits after traini,ng. More needs to be done to etnsure that disabled readers maintain a high level of reading practice over the long term and aehieve a level of ~ a d i n fluency g that is high enough to support theis eontinuccl. enjoyment of reading. O h n and eolkagues noted the need to provide much lmger training In th schools to bring disabled rclladers closer to the level of their peers. Xt wit1 also be important to work kvith the families of disabled readers to boost their accz~ratereadh g practice at home, possibly with the assistance of computer-based in the home. ~ a d i n progrms g

Other results of the Wise and Olson (1995) study may be understood with reference to the strong genetic effects reported earlier for deficits in phonologiral decoding and phoneme awareness. One of the two training conditions explicitly targeted the subjects' dcrfcits in these skills. The other group practiced comprehension strategies while reading both on and off the computer. Subjects in the phonoiogically trained group showed substantially greater improvement in their accuracy for reading xlnncvords and in several measures of phoneme awareness. 'Thus it seemed that we had remediated much of their deficit in phonological skills. Unfortunately this apparent improvement in phonological skills was not accmpanied by a similar expected advantage in growth for disabled readerskord. recognition during training. At the end of training, there was a trend favoring the phonological group on the untirned PIAT measure of word recog~~ition, but the other group hvas significantly better on our measure of time-limited word recogni.tion. Olson, Wise, fo3-mson1 and Ring (1997) reviewed several other =cent studies that found a similar djssodati.011 between growth in disabled readcrs' phonological skills and word recowtion when similar treatment comparisons were made at the end sf training. M o w - u p tests for the Wise and Qlson (1995) subjects, one and two p a r s after training, found no significant differences in any of the wmdcognition rwasures, although the phonological p u p retair~eda signifin no~~word readkg accuracy m d phoneme awareness icant s~~periority at least through the first year following training (Olson, Wise, Ring, 8r Johnson, 199C;").These results seem inconsistent with the view that better phonological decoding skiils should provide a "self-teaching'" mechanism that would support morc rapid growth in word recognition (Share, 1995). What are we to make of these results from a genetic point of viebv? We have seen that hdividual differences in phonological decoding and phoneme wareness art. phenotypically and genetically corrcslated with reading and spelljivlg in the population (OIson e"cLl.,1994; Gayan 8E Qlson, 1997). In most normal readers, phunological skius e m r g e as a cmsequmce of learning how to read even if they arl, not given much explicit instruction. In, disabled readers, phonolngicai, skills tend to lag signjficantty behind their developmnt in word. recognition unless explicit instruction is given (Rack,S~towling~ & Olson, 1992). However, raisk~gdisreading and p h o l ~ e awareness ~~e &led readers+erformmce hno~~word to a level consistent with or better than expected from their word recognition does zot m a n that we have created the same =ad% process seen in yomger normal cihildrfjn at the sarnc level of readjng development. The normal children" integration of their phonologiral skills in the reading process may be much more nah;lral and automatic, requiring less ex-

Ccnr.s, Environmenl, and ReaAitzg Disnbilities

19

plicit attention for their use during fluent reading. In cmtrast, the phonological awareness and decoding skills learned by disabled readers in many training programs may be less well integrated and automatized (Sternher8 & Wagner, 39X2). The high shared genetic influence on deSlieits in fluent pho~~ological decodkg and reading may help explajn why it is difficult for many trainhg methods to penetrate tcr the Ievel of phonological processing that may be responsible for this genetic covariancc. New and more jntense trai,ning methods may be needed to irnprovc disabled readersbautomatic +onological processczs, facititate their transfer to fluent readhg, and implethe ment the automatic "self"teaebjngf7functionthat seems to s~~ppllrt rapid grow& of word recognition and spelling in nomal development. The amount of print exposure required for the efevelopment of fluent reading may still be greater thm in norm1 readers but less than would be required wiZhout the stmgthening of disabled readershautomatic phonological processing.

Ref erenees Bakwin, H, (1973). Reading disability in twins. Det~elopmentalMedirirze and Child 15, 184-1 87. Riez;lrol~~gy, Cardon, L, R,, Smith, S., Fulker, D., Kimberling, W., Pennington, B. & DeFries, J. (1994). Quantitative trait locus f o x reading disability on chromo>some6. Science, 266,2"7-279. BeFries, J, C., CZE Alarcon, M. (1996). Genetics of specific reading disability. Merztnl Retar& tiom and Bevclvpmc~ttralDisnbilities Resetlrctr Res~iews,2, 39-47', BeFries, J. C., Alarcon, M., cSr Olson, R. K. (1997)-Genetics and dyslaia: Developmental differences in the etiotogies of reading and spelting deficits. In C. Hulme & M. Snowling (Eds,), Dyslexia: Biologiml bass, ide~zf#cati;o~ and interz~enlion(pp. 20-37). Lc~ndon:Whurr. Defries, J, C., Filipek, P.A,, Fulker, D. W., Qlsctn, K,K., Pemingtcm, B. F., Smith, 5. D., & Wise, B. W. (1997). Colorado Learning Disabilities Research Center. Learning DisabiIity Qunrferly, 8,7-11i3. BeFries, J. C., & Fulker, B, W. (2985). Multiple regressian analysis of twin data. Belznvior Genetics, 15, 467'4"i", B u m , L. M-, & Markwardt, E C. (1970). Exnminer's snnnttnl: Peabody Xndz'vidaal Actzievenzenl. Tesl. CircXe Pines, MN: American Guidance Sewice. Finucci, J. M., Gottfredson, L., & Childs, B, (1985). Arlrrals of Byslexl'n, 35,117-136. Finucci, J. M., Guthrie J. T., Childs, A. L., Abbey H., & ChiXds, E). (197'6).Arznals of Humalz Genetim, 40,l-23. Gayan, J., Datta, H. E., Castjet;, A., (4r Olson, R. K. (1997). The eCiofogy ofgl"0~1p coddeficits in tourd demdi~tgacross level?;of yfla~tobgicaldecoding and orflzog~~plzic irzg, Paper presented at the meeting of the Society far the Scientific Study of Reading, Chicago, 3/23/97,

Cayan, J., & Olsc~n,R, K. (1997). Comman and specific genetic effects on reading measures. Beltnui;omI Gelzetics, 27, 589. Giiiger, J. W, Ifennington, B. E, & DeFries, J. C. (1991). Risk for reading disabiliw as a function of family history in t h e e family studies. Readitzg and Writing: An Inteldisciplina~yJournal, 3,205-21 7. Crigorenko, E. L., Woc~d,F. B., Meyel; M, S,, Hart, L, A., Speed, W C., Shuster, B. S., & Pauls, D. L. (1997). Susceptibility loci for distinct components of developmental dyslexia on chromasames 4 and 15. Rmcrican Juur~zralof Erlumar~Ge~zetics, 60,27-39. Hallgren, B, (1950), Specific dyslexia: A clinical and genetic study. Acts Pyctziatr Neumlag Scand, 65 (Suppl): 1-287. Harris, E. L. (19%). The contribution of twin research to the study of the etiolc>gy of reading disability. In S. D. Smith (Ed.), Cenefics and learning disabilz'tis (pp. 3-19). San Diego, CA: College Hill. Press. Qlson, R. K., Forsberg, H., Gayan, J., & DeFriest J. C, (in press), A behavioral-genetic analysis of reading disabilities and component processes. In R. M. KIein & P. A. McMullen (Eds,), Converging metizuds for uptdersfnrzding rending a ~ d dyslexia. Boston: MI"TPress. Qlson, R, K., Forsberg, H,, & Wise, B. (1994). Genes, environment, and the development of ortlwgraghic skills, In V. W* Berninger (Ed.), The z~arietiesof orflzogmplzic knowledge l: TIzeare1.ical and developl7tenlaI issues (pp. 27-72). Dc~rdrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. and Fulkes; D. (1989). Specifs Olson, R. K., Wise, B., Canners, F., Rack, J. deficits in companent readkg and language skills: Genetic and enviranmental influences. journal of kearnitzg Disabilities, 22, 6, 339-38. Qlson, R. K., Wise, B., Ring, J,, & Jnhnsan, M. (1997). Computer-based remedial training in phoneme awareness and phonological decoding: Effects on the past-training development af word reeaqition. Scientpc Stztdics of Readi~lg,2, 235-253, Olson, R. K., Wise, B., Jc>bnson,M., & Ring, J. (1997). The etiolc>gyand remediation of phonologically based word recognition and spelling disabilities: Are phonological deficits the "hole" "c>ry? In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundafions c$ r@ndi.~~g acquisitiorz (pp. 30S326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, Iflsmin, R., DeFries, J. C., (4r McCXearn, G. E. (1990). Beil~viorgeneiics: A pkmer: San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, Rack, J, P., Snowling, M, J., eS Olson, R, M. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in bevelctpmental dyslexia: A review. Rmding Research Quarterly, 27,28-53. Rodgers, B. (1983). The identification and prevalence of specific reading retardation. Brilislt Jozrnznlof Educnf ional Psycllology, 53, 369-373, Scarborough, H, S. (1W90). Very early language deficik in dyslexic children. Child Developmcnf, 62,172&1;7$3. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151-228. Shaywitz, S. E., Escobar, M. D., Shaywitz, B, A,, Fletcher, J, M,, & Makuch, K, (1992). Evidence that reading disability may represent the lower tail of a normal distribution of reading ability, New Englntzd Jourr-zal of Medicine, 326, 'I45-2 50.

Ccnr.s, Environmenl, and ReaAilzg Disabilities

21

Shaywitz, 5. E,, Shaywitz, B. A,, Fletcher, 5, M. (1990), Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls. Journal of the Anzel.icl-kn Medical Association, 264, 998-1 (1102. Smith, S. B., Kirnberling, W. J., 13enningtan,B, F,, & Lubs, H. A. (1983). Specific reading disability: 1dentificatic)n of an inl-rerited fc3rm through linkage analysis. Scier~cle,219,1345-1347, Smith, S. D., Pennington, B. E, (4r Kirnberling, W J. (1993). Screening far multiple genes influencing dyslexia. Reading alzd Writing: An Ifzferdiscipli~zary Inzarr-zal,3, 285-298, Stanovich, K. E,, & West, K.F. (1989).Exposure to print and srthographic pracessing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24,482433, Sternberg, R. J., & Mragner, R. K. (1982). Automat.izi?tic>nfailure in learning disabilities. Toyics in Learnl'ltg a ~ Leami~tg d Bisabilitifi, 2, 1-31. Stevenson, J., Graharn, I?, Friedman, G., (3t McLoughfin, V. (19137). A twin study of genetic influences on reading and spelling ability and disability. lour~zralofChild Psychology and Psycftialry, 28,229-247. Vijglel; G. I),, DeFries, 5, C,, & Decker, 5. N. (1985). Family history as an indicator of risk f a r reading disability. foz-lrrzal o f l e ~ r r z i ~Disabilz'fies, ~g 38,419-421, Wise, B. W., & Olson, R, K. (1W5). Computer-based phonological awareness and reading instruction. Annals of Dyslex-ia, 45,99--122. Zerbin-Rudin, E. (1967). Kongenitale Wc>rbXindheitoder spezifische dyslexie (congenital word-blindness). Bulletin of the Orfolr Society, I: 7,47-56.

The Biological Foundations of Developmental Dyslexia

As you read these words, you are not experie~~chg my co~~scious effort on F u r part. C)3.1, the contrary you let the wmds transport you from reading per se into the wmld Of ideas anli irnagi-naticm.You allow the wods to tink to each other and cseate a story, and what you, cxperimce and compreknd is the story, not sirmgle words, This description is suita'ole only for a person who has mastered reading, for whom the pmcess of rea$jZIg words has become automatic. The experkncc of reading is completev different for children who have just kamed how to read, fos aduXts who are tvying to master mading in a foreign language, and for those who have general difiiculties inmasterhg readkg in their native lmguage. At first glance the Browns are a typicd American family.A d m is a carpenter and Kate is a school speech specialist. They have five childrttn: two boys, 12 and 6, and three girls, 11,9, and 6. The youngest kids are twins. What makes the Browns different is that several of them have trouble reading. me11 Adam was a child, that is, more than twenty years ago, he had serious problems at school related to his inability to master reading. Fortunately, his p w n t s were well-off emu$ to send him to a reading specialist, who worked with him for over four years, helping him to learn how to =ad. Adam made it through high school but did not even consider the idea of going tc:,college-it was difficult:for him to pickre himself wading through all those books and papers one needs to read in order to get a college degree, Now his oldest boy and nine-year-old daughter have similar probiems. Adam's older daughter seems to be doing well i,n school: Shc earns straight A's at school and just loves reading The other two kids, his twins, are s h p l y too young to judge. Adam says that: he is worried about them, though. His older children are getting

help, but it is quite expensive, and it would be difficdt for the family to manage if:four kids needed help with reading. A d m , however, Will do anything in his power to help them; that was what his family did, for Ern. A d m says that his dad was always very supportive of him. Adam's father hirnsdf had a brother and sister who had difficulties hvith rcading and writing, Adam" aunt, Gloria, is still alive, and her Christmas cards are notorious in the family for the number of speiling mistakes in them. For better or worse, GLoria married a m m who also had trouble mastering reading. Gloria t d d Adam that her husband's family also had a history of readiw problems. Adam's UUne 'Jack passed away a long time ago. Adam remembers that Jack's wife read. hlrn newspaper highlights every morning, m e y had five children, four of h o r n got a college education, and one, just like Adam, a h a y s had difficulties with readbg. Adam" bbrothers did very well at school. The oldest, Stm, is a lawyer, and his daughter is very smart. She is only five but alrea$y b o w s how to spell the word ascheologist, As a child, Mike, the youngest broher, went to see the s m e reading specialist Adam did. These lessons heIped Mike a lot. Mike is an engineer, but both of his daughters did nctt do well in school. Kate ncver made it through high school, and her son is also having difficulties with reading. Mary graduated from high school but did not even want to hear about going to college. At school she worked really hard in order to get t%lrougkrcladhg and hvriting t?ssi,gnment.s:She put a lot of time into her homework and always complained that eveqthing that involved mading and writing took too long. The Browns are not a real family- They are a protoypc of: m n y families in which reading problems arc transmitted from generation to generation; the Browns do not resemble any particular family, yet they have somthing in comrnon with each of them. Families similar to the f-frown iarnily led scientists to formulate a hypothesis that certain types of =ading pmbtems m in famfties and therctforcr appear to be herediCary. This hypothesis, forxnulated h i t i d y by Hallgren in 11950, has attracted much attention ammg =searchers and has introduced a new aspect into the search for the biological bases of cltyslexia. Research on the h e r e d i t a ~ mechanism of dyslexia has been cjosely Iinked both to the development of behavioral, models of dyslexia and to attempts to understand its underlying biological grounds. And the more resemhen; know about developmetntaii dyslexjiz, the morc3 apparent it becolnes Chat the data accumulated within three paradigms of studying it (behaviora.1, behavioritl-genetic, and neurapsychok,gical) cmverge, that fineiings h m one paradigm cotntribute to progress in another paradigra, and that multidiscipfinary researchers' efforts help to understand the mechanism and the course of developmmtal dyslexia..

The gcral of this chapter is to offer an interpretation of recmt findings gleaned from the field of resemh on the biologic& basis of reading and developmental dyslexia. This interpretation arose from evidence drawn from three distinct sources: research m developmental dysiexia in different populations around the world, brain research on reading and dyslexia, and genetic research on reading and d:yslexitl. This evidence is structured to acidress three questions: (1.)Are there famflies tike the Browns in populatinns that speak dif"c3rent languages? (2) 1s there a biological trait, a biological '"foundation," that runs in families like the Bmwn family and manifests itself in various behaviors ranging from the inability to eomprehelnd a necvspaper headline to m a b g spelling errors? and (3) What do we know about the famjtialty of developmental dyslexia, and do we h o w enough to hypothesize why and h w this cmditian gets passczd from generation to galeration in the Brown family and cmparable lamilies? MiscletZazleous Details

As it appears from the description of the hypothetical Brown family, the spectrum of their reading prohlems is quite broad, extending from spelting errors to serious afficulties with the readi,ng of single words. This variiibility is very real and is reflect& in a major problem in the field of dyslexia studies-namely, the definition cJf dyslexia. If the complexity of a studied phenomnon were measused by the number of terms and concqts used to define and investigate it and these data were mayzed, dqlslexia w o d d no doubt score somewhere in the top 5 percent. The nuntber of terms used in the investigation of dyslexia is especially remarkable when one takes into account the brief period during which there has been awareness cJf specific reading failures. Accclrdint; to Rchardson (1992), the first mention of dyslexia-like problems was found as late as in eighteenth-century medical literature, where dyslexia was viewed as a type of aphasia. &rir~g the next 201) years, the condition of specific rclading . f a h = was variously refcrsed to as ward hlilzd~ess(Kussmaul, 1877), dyslexia (BerXirt, as cited in Richardson, 1992), cangenit.Ill S O O ~ blindness (Morgm, 3896; Hirtshelwood, MY), sfrephusy~~boiia (a disorder of twisted sy &of s; Orton, t, 92R), spec+c readi~zgdisability (Eustis, 7,99.7), read in^ disability (Kirk & Bateman, 1962), specqic &zleloprnt.ntnI ilyslexk (Critchky f 970), zi~zexpecbedreadingfailtrre (Symmes & Rapoport, 19721, specific readillq: ~tardatinn(Berger, Yule, &- Ratter, 1975; van der Wissel & Zeger, 1985), poor veadizg (Olson, Kliegi, Davidson, & Foltz, 19851, and

possibly by many other terms that have not yet been noted by historians of science. .Along with not agreejng on how to refer to this condition in general, researchers have run into mother difficulty*Could it be said that various manifestations of problems observed in the Rrokvn family are differe~~t one condition or that they are different conditions that just happen to coincide ir7 m e family? Does poor spelling have the same m t as difficdties with readhg single wctsds? Emslating t k s e questions into one, formulatctd, hn the fanguage of genetic studies, could it be assumed that the phenotype f the behavioral manikstation of the underlying genetic structure, genotype) trmsmitted in the Brown. family is singular, or are these multiple phenotypes, not necessarily related to each other? The current inability of fie field to pmvide a defit~iteanswer to this question constitutes a major shortcoming of the extant studjes of developmental dyslexia: Most of the studies conducted so far are characterized by imprecision and variabflity in the definition of the reading phenotype. The Workitzg Definition The quilt of dcfinitjons covering the body of developmental dyslexia is a research subject in itself, Without engaging in a cmplicated debate on what dyslexia is and what it is not, I shall in this chapter use the following worrcing definition of developmental dyslexia: Developmental dyslexia is a camplex, biologica1ly rooted befilavioral condjtion resultkg from impairment of metalinguistic phonr>logical ahitity and manifeskd in difficdties related to mastering readjng at the level of population norms under conditions of adequate educational and normal developmental environment, The belief underlying this definition is Chat every huntan being who is in adcquate health and is developing in an adequate social environment will learn how to speak; and similarly, every individual will learn h w to read. Whereas language acquisit.ion is driven by powerful hternal developmental forces that are evolutionarily fixed as excfusivety human ones (by hnguage instinct in Pinker's 119951 terms), the mastery of reading is less predetermined yet is biologkally contmlled. The possihiliy of learning bow to read is biologically orchestrated and evolutionarily fixed. The ability that drives fie devdopmmt of the "reading organ" is the metafinguistic ability of processing phonemes. In olfner words, the assumption here is that acquisition of normal mading skills is biologirally grounded.. This ""grounding,,"%~wever, is a two-way eiynamic path between the biologic& foundatim and the peculjarities of societai practices rclgarding the process of learning how to read.

'Tb illustrate, when a blip bu:b is planted, there is a high probability that a beautiful flower Will dcvelop k m the butb. However, in the course of a sprout coming out and the tulip growing, many things can go wrong. 'The bulb itsdf could bok just fine but be a carrier of deietcrilrus genes, crihallenging the developmetnt of a sprout. 'The soil might be poisoned. Tbere might not be enough sun, Similarly, the development of the //reading organ" rrtight be jeoparclizd both by a malfumtion in the biological programs settkg up the possibility for such m organ to develop and by jnadeytlatc envir ents in which the formation of the ""reading organf7takes place. 'The biological mechanisms leading to distortims of the "readjng organ'sf"evelopment might not be the s m e mechanisms that are responsible for normal rcadjng development,

If reading is a product of the " ~ a d i n gorgan,'" whose development is evolutionarib predetermined, this organ should have an identifiable scat (or a n u d e s of seats) in the brain, The "reading organ" i s a functional organ that develops as a result of interac"cicmbetween its biological substrak and the linguistic and edwationai envir0mem.t.sin which the development takes place, The development of fie readhg organ is archestrated Zly a number oE cognitive alnilities, one of nlhich is metalinguistic phonological ability. A workjng hypothesis defended in this chapter states that reading, by the means of various cognitive processes involved, is rooted somewhere in the brain; and those brain circuits could have been establjshed to carry their function by the genes. M s ~ o v e rreading , ability might relate to a set of genes that help wire it in place. I f these genes and the functions they carry are disrupted, reading suffers, whereas o&er cognitive fulletions (e.g., thhking) might remain prirnari,Ly intact, h o t h e r possible explanation is that reading involves a, number of cognitive pmcesses that art. m t e d in differcsnt art-as of the brain and that the malfunction of d i f f e ~ n genes t i,n thc process of brain devdopmetnt results in the cascade of events impairing reding-relevant cognitive processes. Present gaps in our understanding of the biological mechanis~~s of both readjng and dyslexia, unforh_lnately$do not permit the verification of the working hypothe"is. Reading is a uniquely human skill, and this uniqueness hampers the identification of szlitable animal models. Moreover, most people feel somewhat resistant to their brains being ixzjected with chemicals, spearcrd with electrodes, surgically oper;lted upon, or split, sliced, or stained. Neither do they appreciate the idea of tampering with their genes. What is left for researchers is to puzzle over pieces of data acrulnulated t h u g h different studies m d to irnpose their workimg

hypotheses on the existing relevant evidclnce, estimating the fit between theory and data. In this chapter the suggested working hypothesis is supported by evidence accumulated from three differcmt types of =search: studies of rclading and dedopmental dyslcxi,a in different languages; studies ol the brain bases of rcadjng and developmntal dyslexia; and genetic studies of reading and developmmtal dyslexia.

Devt3lopmenlal Dyslexia: LanguageSpedific or Language-Free? Accosding to a survey of data collected in 26 countries, the percmtage of schootatge childrtln with cltyslexia ranges f m a low in Japan and Cl~ina fl percel~t)to a high in Venezuela (33 percel~t),with an overall rnedian rate of 7 percent (Tamopol & Tamopol, 1981). In English-speaking corntries, children with reading problems constitute about 20 percent of the school population; in Scrmdhavim countries, about 18 percent, and in Germmy, about 5 percent (G/ezerman,1983). Three different hypotheses can be formulated to explain the varying incidence of reading problems in differel~tcountries. Accordislg to the first hypotlnesis, the observed diffe~ncesin incidence are attributable to definitional differences or educational prartices. For example, there art. no characters inChhese or Japanese whose maning is equivalent.to the term reading Bisahill.'ty In Asian countries, as anothr example, it is mre litkely that reading prtiblems wlrutd be credited to lack of propm experinot being adequately taught, or not being ence, not trying hard e~~ough, motivated enough, rather than to disability (Stevenson, Stigler, Lucker, tee, :Hsu, & Kitamura, 39t12). Similarly, French psychobgists have suggest.ed that the major causes ol dyslexia asc motivalional and cttltural rather than linglristic (LeFebvre, 1978). The second hypothesis sugge"t" that language and mthography play an importanl role in readjng disability (e.g., Mann, 1%5; Read, Zhang, Me, & Ding, 1986). The highest frequency of read.ing disability is observed in Engtish-speaking countries. Engtish is notoriously irregdar, It is possible that very difkrent Language-processing;def cits will be assodated with dyslexia in languages that embed regular and easy-to-master rules of grapheme-phonew correspondence and minfmize a probabitity of phrtnotogical, coding errors (Frost 6r; Rentin, 1992; Tayior, 7,YKI). Languages differ in their phonological characteristics, such as the compLexiQ and variety of syllabte types (Mattingly, 1985) and the transparency and consistency with which t-he orthograghic representations map onto the phonofogy. In so-called p h o t - r o l l l shnllulo orthographies, the only sources of- constrai~~ts on letter sequences are constrahts on sound se-

qumces (i.e., mthography =presents phonology almost di~ctly).In socalled pholzolllyicnlly d e q orthographies, restrictions on letter sequences are related not only to phonological constrahts but also to the etymology and morphology of the written language. For example, it has been suggested that "the sylldary of Japanese provides consistencies between symbols and their prmmciation, and that the ideographs of Chhese and Japanese offer possibilities for ~ s p o n s to e whole units that do not exist in alphabetic writing syste~sss ~ ~ as c hEnglish" (Stevenson et al., 1%2, p. 11651, The orthographic hypothesis was initially supported by an early study of Rozin, Foritsky, and Sotsky (1971), in which they showed that c h i l d ~ nwho had seriorls difficulties in learning how to read in English were much mose successful in reading Chinese characters to which English words had been associated. This finding, however, was not confirmed in popdation-based st..udiesof rclading disability in Japan and Taiwan (Stevenson et al., 1982,19873, The results challenged orthography as the major determinant of the incidence of reading disabilities across cultures. 'The researchers e~nphasilzedthat there appeared to be more similarities than differences amnng children with reading problems in the United States, Japan, and Taiwan (Stevenson et al., 1982,1987). Fi,ndly the third hypothesis is related to both of the prcvious ideas but presents a different explanation. This hypothesis is based on four lines of converging evidence.. First, the majority of modem models (JI reading, most of which WE devdoped in the EngIish ldnguage, put phonological awareness at their center. Recently, even those models that include phonological pmcesses but also stress the importance and independmce of orthographic processes (c*g.,dual-codi,ng models of reading, Coltheard., 1978; Coltheard, Curtis, Atkhs, & FiaIler, 1933; Paap, McDonald, Schvanweldt, & Noel, 1987; Paap & Nod, 1991) have been chaflenged. Several studies (e.g., tulcatela Rr 7isrveyr 1991, 1993,1994; Perietti & Bell, 1991; V m M e n , 1987) have obtained evidence for an early and strong influence from assembled phmdogy in cmducting any lexical ogerations. Second, Chere is now compelling data that an individual% understanding of the phonological stmcture of wards is an important predictor of success in teaming to read in many aiphabetic ofiographies besides English (e.g., Cardoso-Martins, 1995; Cossu, Shankweiler, Z,iberman, Katz, & Tola, 1.988; hrgunoglu & Oney, submitted; Lundberg, Olofsson, & Wall, 1980; Wimmer, Lmderl, Linoraner, & Hummer, 1991). Third, by now a certain consensu,s has been formed around the converging evidence that phonological impaiments play a causal rote in the genesis of dif iculties irz mastering reading in English (e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1.9533; Bryant (% Bradey 1985; Frith, 1985; Stanovirh, 1988; To~esen,this volm e ) . And finatlyf a nurmber of studics have investigated the role of

phonologicai impairmmt in the gene?jis of reaeiing failures in "easierf' than English writhg systems (Whmet; t,99;31,1996)e Two observations made h these studies are especialZy important: (1) develogmmtal dyslexics in m m shallow languages show sipificantly lower e r m rates than dyslexics in phonologically deeper languages but still differ significantly from their matched normally reading peers in ~ading speed, a d (2) the best prltdictclr of reading performance in poor readers is the qllajify of their nonword rclading, which is considered to be an indicator of phonological abjlity. In general, Eumpem definitions oi dysiexia are very close to English-American ones. Dyslexia is viewed as a developmetntd disorder, the central cleficit of w:hich is phonetic-process-. ing problems, in the Netherlands (Bourn & Legein, 1980; Walraven, :Reit=, & Kapper, 1994), France (Bailly, 1990; Tomatis, 196?, Po1md (Krasowicz, 1993), Switzerland (Might & Groner, 1992), and Italy (Cassini, Ciampalini, & Adriana 19K4).According to Hoien (E.989),dyslexia in Norway is also viewed as a behavioral problem to which language is central, and successful reading reqrairss the recog~nitionof symbols, sounds, and spelling patterns. Lundberg (1.985)cmducted a la~e-scaleepidemiological stuc-ly of reading disabiiity in Sweden. ?"he resutts were largely in agreemel~twi& current Anglo-American readkg research, al;L%laughthe researcher applied a broader assessment battery and attempted to approach reading disabilities within a dewcllopmental context that is cornparatively rare h other com~tries.Ramaa, Miles, m d L,alit.lnannma (1993) studied dyslexics who speak Kannada, a Dravidim language of South hdia, and found that these children showed the s m e pattern of specific dyslexia fotxnd in childre11 who s p e d Elzropem languagt3s. In addition, it has been observed that dyslexics inany language have difficulties mastering any seccmd language, suggesting, again, that the dyslexic impairn the United States, fnr exam*, this fhding is ment is knguage-fxee. X embedded, in educational policies rclgarding disabled readers: Many diagnosed dyslexics are allowed get their college degreewifiout meeting foreign-jimguage require~~ents. Thus these four Xixles of evidence converge around the interpretation oi phonological abilities as a metahguistic ability, the manifestation of which is moderated by a given linguistic system. Just as spoke11 Xanguages differ in the complexity of their phonological structure, so written languagediffer in their representations of sp&en languages. Just as characteristics of spoken languages aMect the patterns of devdopment of phonologiral procesties, so those patterns, in turn, affect the dcvelopent of reading skills. 'These observations permit formulatit~gthe third hypothesis regarding the varying h c i d e ~ ~ cofe developmental dyslexia ixn. different languages, It appears that the mechanism leading to difficulties

associated with maskring rt?a$.ing is universal and is related to the metalinguistic ability to decompose words into sounds m d link phonemes to graphemes. The manikstatim of readhg prhlems, however, will be different fn different languages depeneiing on the phonological liemaneis imposed by a give11 linguistic system mhk of an analogy: A person who is musically tone-deaf might not be awase of his or her d.efici"tti.1 asked to sing; and when asked to sing, dealhg with a sirnple mebdy will be much easier than dealhg with a complex opera aria. If we are willkg to accept the third. hypothesis as the working hypothesis, that is, if we betieve that there is a metafinguistic phonological deficit that is biologically based and h o s e behavjoral manifestation varirs depending on the challenge imposed by a phonological stmcturt. of a given language, then it is logicai to suggest that there should be a distinct signature of this deficit at a biological rather than a behwioral level. h this regard the disthction between the deep and the superficial phenotypes of dysiexia (Pads, Naylor, & Flowers, 1992) appears to be very useful: The supedficial, behavioral phenotype of dyslexia mi@t cover a wide speckurn of behavioral manifestations varyjng in different languages and depending on the amount of remediation, w h e ~ a the s deep biological phenotype (e.g., certain structural or fu~~ctional pattms of the brain) would remain distinct and identifiable even after p a r s of remediation. across mmy So it appears that the existence of dyslexia is rccog~~ized cultures and continents. Even though the amount of cross-cultural. and cornparathe search on developmental dyslexia is rather lirnited, the majority of results supports a consist-ent p a t t a in specific dyslexja that does not depend on any one writing system or geographic focation. Thus the differences in the rates of incidences of dyslexia throughout the world c m most likely be explahed not by low prevalence of this disorder in different cultures that results from different underlying language-specific dyslexic deficits but rather by the fnterplay of two factors: the phonological struchare of a given language and the societd attihades tow& the &soder. The resdts presented earlier suggest the possibility of constructing a culture-free defhition of dyslexia (Wood, Felton, Flowers, & Naylor, 1-91), central to wljct-t is, probably, the biological basis of- this condition. It appears that the Brown family might exist in any societyr speaking any language. The basic etyt;iexic impaiment is hnguage-free. However, its manifestation is language- and culture-dependent, Chly in a situation where (I) the phonological structure oi the language is challenghg enough to impose a serious obstacle for dyslexics, (2) the fwquency of normal reading in a give11 society is high e ~ ~ o u gsoh that failures are noticeable, and (3)there is a societal demand to master this skill that is backed up by an adequate number of professimals, is dyslexia

noted by educators, psychologists, and biologists, its prevalence studied and its etioXogy hvestigated.

Studies of Brain Structure The Neu9-apatholom of Dyslexia

Postixortem shadies have been performed on the brains of four dyskxjc men, Three mn had histories of language delay, and one had a history of s e i z e s . All fr,ur men &owed unusual symmetry in the planurn tempcr rale (posterior aspect of the superior teixporal lobe), a structure relevant to normal language function (Gahburda, Sherman, Rosen, Aboitiz, & Geschwind, 19t.;5). A postmortem study of three dyslexic women fHumphrt~ys,Kaufman, & Galaburda, f 990) with comorbid attentional disorders, psychiatric disturbances, and head injury also reported a highly symmetrical plane in all subjects. In normal individuals, a distinct asymmetry is usualXy seen in this brain s t m c t u ~which , is larger on the left side of the braixl in 65 percent of the population, and larger on the right in II pertlent. At the microscopic level, the etyslexic braills were found to have sigszificantly mare misplaced and unusually organized nerve cells, which, presumably, reflects the failure of neurons to reach their normal cortical targets during fetal development. The presme of an unusually sym,metricalplane is the most consistent netrropathoXogicd h d i n g in dyslexia to date. This symmetry is not due to a decrctase in the size of tl-te left planum but results from an fnrrease in the s i x of the right planurn. Galaburda and colleagues (1985) hypothesized that this results from reduced cell death during fetal development, which leaves an excessive number of srtrviving neurons in the right p l a n w , forming a m dous connections and resulting in a ""miswi.sing"of the brain. Thus it is proposed that dysiexia is an outcome of anomalous neural development, the trigger of which n-tight occur at the prenatal stage of development. Furthermore, these authors suggest that dyslexia could have its beghnings in the hteractim between the prenatal chemical environment m d the maturation rate of the relevmt areas of the brain, This i~~teraction could resul"cn momalous cell migration and organization. For example, it has been &own that neurms in various stmctures of the dyslexic thialamus are smaller than expected (Galaburda, Schmtt, Sherman, Rosen, & Derrenberg, 1996). This structural abnormality may be related to the temporal processjxzg abnormalities described in the auditory system of fantjuage-impaired c h i l d ~ n(e.g., Tallal & Piercy, 1973). More recelztly; h addition to unusual symmetry; small vascular events and other injuries have also been s u ~ e c t e das being related to dyslexia (Galaburda, 1990). :It has been proposed (Galaburda et al., 1996) that

these ischemic injuries are produced by autoimmune damage of vessel walls, Icadi,ng to cortical injury, scars, and disrupted blood flow, Another line of evidence is drawn from studies of brain-dmaged patients m d studies of brain asymmetry. For example, it has been s h w n that isolated-right-hemispherepatients show little capacity for phonological processing (Zaidel& Peters, 1981). Moreover, patknts with acquircd dyNLexia ~ s u l t i n g from extenshe left-htlmisphere lesions tend tcr demmstrak extremely poor decodkg skills but adequate orthographic m d semantic judgments, suggesting that these pat-ients rely mostly on righthemispheric processes in reading (Colthead, 1980; Schweiger, Zaidel, & Dobkin, 1989). 'The results of visual hemifield experiments with neurologirally nomal individuals also suggest that phonological processing is associated prcrdominantly with left-hemispheric functions (Cohen & Freernan, 1,978; Parkil-t & West, 1,983 and that the advantage oE the left hemisphere is smaller for wornen t h m for men (Luh & Levy, 1995; tukatela, Carello, Savir, & Turve!i, 1986; Pugh et al., 1996)

Raentgenographic computerized tomography and, more recently, magnetic resonance imaging have been used to examine cerebral a s p m e tries in dysiexia, particularly posterior hemispheric asymmetries. Based on neurobiologicd theory that irnpIicated the importme of the central language areas, computerized tornographic magnetic resonance imaging shtd-ies have provided evieience that links deviatitllns in normal pattenls of posterior asy~nmetry(left greater than right) to dyslexia (Flowers, 1993; Hynd, Semrud-Clikeman, Lurys, Novey, & Etiopulas, 1990; Rumsey, 1992). Wereas normal brains favor the left planum temporale and posterior region, dyslexics appear to have a higher incidence ol symmetrical or =versed posterior asymmetry that is due to increases on the right side ( h a r a et d., 1991), dthctugh other searchers report decreases in the size of the left plmum (Hynd et al., 1990; Garsen, Hoiei~,Lundberg, & Odegaxd, 1990).However, Leonard and colleagues (1993), in their recetnt shtdy of nine cltyslexics, found no anomalous interhemispheric symmetry, alChough some subjeds wi* dyslexia had an anomdous intrahemispheric asymmetry owing to a significant shift of right planar tissue from the temporal tcr the parietal bank. Similar exaggerated asymmetries were mentiomd in another study ( T z e ~ 1994). ~ g ~ fn addition, I:.,eonardand colleagues (1993) found that dyslexics were more likely to have cerebral anomalies such as missing or duplicated gyri bifaterally fn the planum m d parietal opercul~xm,presumably reflecth~gdisturbance in cell migration resulting from genetic or developmental causes, &searchers have also examfned dif erent regions of the brain in attempting to fir-td the bio-

htgim"lasis fnr cltyslexia. For example, in a recent study of 46 dystexic and 14 cmtrol sub~ecb,Hynd and cdeagues (1995) found that the cop pus callosum was significantb smaller in dyslexics. Thus these studies, though pmviding overall suppcrrt to a neurobiological model of dyslexia, are mixrked by s m e inconsistmcy in terms of their speific fjndings. Certain methodological flaws, such as small pupulations and varyhg diagnostic criteria used to identrfy dyslexic subjects, may coliectively contribute to the some\vhat discsrrpant reslrlts (Hynd & %mrud-Clikem, 1980). Hawever, even tln.ough the presented fhdjngs should be cmsidlered only as suggestive of potential stmctural daerences in dyslexics as cornpared to control populatims (Filipek & Kcnnedy, 7,991.f, the researchers consistently find the presence of developmental anomalies in dysiexic brains, which, on its own, is a rather strong indication of the underlying biological bases of dyslexia.

Functional Brain. Studies A number of studies were designed (e.g., Hughes, 1985) to gaiin same insight into dyslexia-specific EEG correlates of phonological codixrg. Results of childhood electrophysitrlogical shtdies &owed a clear physiological defcit in children with reading disability These deficits nnanifested themselves as longer latcncics in the evoked. potentials and a reduced amplitude at a number of latttncies (e.g., Harter, Diering, & Wood, 1988; Harter, Anllo-Plento, Wood, 8s Schroeder, 7,"388), Researchers found greaiter theta actkity and less beta power at parietal, central, and frontal sites to be characteristic of dyslexia (Ackerman, Dflman, Ogleshy, & Newon, 7,994; Duffy, Dencka, Bartels, & Sandini, 1981); Flynn, Deering, Goldstein, ct; Rahbar, 1.992; Lubas, 1991; Pricflp, John, Ahn, & Kaye, 15183, indicating that adequate ~ a d e r process s verbal stimuli moro activeb. Adult etectropSlysiological st.udies of dystexia also pointed to reduced amplitudes and smaller differences in the waveforms of evoked potentials to words versus flashes (Preston, Guthrie, Kirsch, Gertman, & Childs, 1977).

Tncredjblc recent advances in neuroimaging technology have made it pcssible to detect and inwestigate cortical rttgions and their activation patterns associated with pedormance of complex cognitive tasks (e.g., Demonet, Price, Wise, & Frackowiak, 1994; Petersen, Fox, Posner, Mintw, & Raichle, 1989; Shaywitz et al., 1995). New functional brain-

imaging methods are being applied to test hypotheses of cortical dysfuxzctian in hoth normal reading and dyslexia. This technoogy enables study of patterns of cortical activation (e.g., giucose utilization, blood flow, a d oxygen consumption) elicited by various copi"civechailenges. The goal of such studies is to determhe what areas of the brah get activated while performing the operation of read.ing and whether dyslexir individuals ac"civate the brain regions imvolved in rt?a$.ing, language, and phonological coding i,n a way simiiar to n o r d rcladers* .A number of investigators u s i q iunctiond magnetic resonmce imaging utilized subtraction methodology, vvhich employs a list of increasingly djffieult tasks with each consecutive task induding a preceding task as a subcomponent. By measuring the brain actkity durirrg the perfnrmance of such a set of increasingly difficult tasks and subtracting the index of activation associated with a tower-level task from the level of activation associated with a higher-level task, researchers quantify the brain activity by creating brain activation maps. 'l'hese maps outline cmrcllations betwee13 task, performme and rrllgional activation. For example, Pugh and colleagues (1996) decomposed the holistic pmccss of reading into a number of distinct visual a d linguistic pm"cesses (i.e., line, letter case, nonword rhyme, and semantic category judgxaents) and investigated whether these processes employ different cortical regions. These =searchers (Pugh et at., 2996) examined six codical ~ g i o nlocated s in the frontal, temporal, and occipital Inbes. The frontd-lobe areas included the inferior frontal gyrus (centered in Bmca's arca), the prefrontal dorsolaterat, and the orbital gyrus. The temporal-lobe areas included the superior temporal a r u s m d the middle temporal gyrus. Finally; i,n the occipital lobe, the extrastriate region was imestigated. The study, by pcrhting to increased activation cJf the b r b uneier various subtracticm conditions, moted different visua) and Iinguistic processes to differcrzt brain areas. 1Phus orthographic processing made maxin?um demands on the extrastriate ~ g i o nphonological , processing activated hoth the inferior frontal gyrus and the temporal lobe, and semantic processing errgaged the superior temporal, gyms more than did either phonological or orthogmphic p c e s i n g . Fbctings from recent studies (Woward et al., 1992; Law, Kanno, & Fujita, 1992; Petersen et al., 1990; Shaywitz et al., 1995) seem to be converging around the involvement of Bmdmann's A R 37 ~ in object recognition, where the object category can inchde letters m d hvords..These fin,din,gs were extended further kz the study of Garret, Wood, Flowers, and Absher (1997). The researchers applied the positron-emission tomography methodotogy in order to rcgjster brain activity during performme of the letter-recognition task, The mmarkable result of this study was that Left Brodmann's Area 37 and the left angular WWU"generated meta27olic

activity that was inversely correlated with task performance. This link betwcen better performance and less activation suggests that increased activation may indicate ineificient processing and thus may be related to failurcz to inhibit completing activity, ~cruimclmtof resources exceedirrg those necessary for a give11 task, or the brain's immaturjty reflected in its inability to activate locally rather than globally. Thus recent studics of associations bettveen brain regirrns and various procedural components oE reading in accomplished readers indicate that reading is a holistic process rooted in the brain and link various mading suhcompcment pmcesses to different brain regims. Finally, the most crucial piece of evidence critical for the argwent in this chapter comes from comparative brain metabolism studies of normal and dyslexic ~ a d e r sOnly . a few stuciies of dystexics have been confunction& neurainnaghg methdology. Two early studducted ~"eiliziing ies (Hyrmd, Hynd, Sulllivm, & Mingbury, 1987; Rumsey et al., 1987) reported differmces in the brain Rsponses of dyslexic and control suhjects to cognitive tasks, but neither had enough evidcnce to conclude Chat lefthemisphere activiv is ahnomd in dyslexia. Flowers, m o d , and Naylor (1991) found that left-hemisphere superior temporal blood flow is positively related to ort-hogrizphic acszlracy. This correlation was found only at the left superior temporal region. Nota:blrr is the fact that this finding was replicated in two fndependmt samples. fn additim, readiz~gperforin chiidhood, was significantly positively relat,d to mance, as diag~~oscd blood flow in Wrnicke" Area and, negat-ively, to the flow in the mgulas gyrus. Flowers (1993) also noted that generalized low EEC waveform and high-angtrlar gyrus blood flow were correlated with each other and were distinct characterjstics of dyslexic brahs. En addition, this "brain profile" w a s indepencfent of reading improvement f m chftdhcrod to adulthood, suggestkg that it might be related to early reading problems. Similarly, Rumsey and colleagues (1992) found that the left tempmparieta1 cortex near the anguitar gyrus was less likety to be activated in dyslexic men when g o i ~ ~from g rest to rhyme detection. Furthermore, dyslexics showed a decline in accuracy of dckction compared to control subects. Other researchers (Wood, Flowers, Buchsbaum, & Tallal, 1991) found that dyslexics, when reading, demonstrate unevenly spread metabolic activity throughout the brain, whereas metabolism in normal individuals tends to be mart? e q u a b distributed, In addition, patterns of metabolism in dyslexics are also different from tl-tose in controls, Stlbsequent to their earlier work, Garret, Wood, Flwers, and Ahsher (1997), comparing patterns of brai,n metabolism in accmpfished rcaders and dyslexic ones, 'found metabolic differences (relative to matched controls) In the thalamus a d the posterior inferior-temporal cortex. Specifically, dyslexics

showed decreased metabolism in two right-hemispheric regions, Brodmann's Area 37, and the thalamus. One of the most exciting ljnes of the brain research on reading is related to tifiks found between patterns of hrain activation as quantified through regional changes in cortical rnetabolisln registered kvhile periorrning cognitive operations and hdependent bchavioral measures on tasks vieLved as reflecting those cognitiwe operations. For example, Prxgh and others (1997) found strong assmiations betwcen pat-lerns of brain acthation and peculiarities of performance in the lexical decision task. In detail, those individuals who showed greater extrastriate and iz~ferior frontal. right-hemispheric activation tended to be slower in rejectkg nozzwords and more sensitive to the phonetic regularity of real words. G a r ~ t and m o d (1997) detected strong relationships between variation in fhalarnic metabolism, especially in the left hemisphesc, and variation in indexes of reading abi1it.y such as singk-word, reading, To summarize, studies of both structural and functional brain differences in normal readers m d dyslexics have acclnrnulafed evidence suggcrsthg that dyslexic subjects are different from. controls. The consistent finding of abnormal, excessive left temporoparietaf or angular gyms activation in t-he brains of dyslexjcs indicates that &normal reading performance has a specifc mechanism that is different from the mechanisms of normal reading. It appears that an abnormal reader does not simply show characterisrcics of an extreme on the normal distribution but instead dmmstrates features that are either suppressed or not at aU p ~ s e n in t the normal population (Wood, Feltcm, Flowers, & Naylor, 1991). In addition, functional studies of brain regions engaged during the pergomancc of cogslitive tasks that are considered models of subcomponent processes invoked in reading in normal subjects link different prwesses to differlinks appear to be valid when the ent: areas of the brain. M s ~ o v e rthese , patterns of brain actbation are correlated with performance on behaviord tasks. And most important for the presmt discussion, there is cmverghg evidelzce suggestbg that the phozzoXogica1 process is rooted to a particular brain area (termporal gyrus) and that the patterns of activity in this area vary for dyslexic versus n o r 4 readers. i J i n h gthese genmal fincfings back to the Rrawns, one could hypothesize that what has been transmitted in this family is a deep braixr-based phenotype of dyslexia. The observed phenotypiwvariation in manifestations of dyslexjiz might be expla.in,ed by the degree of impajrment and t h e and amount of remediation offered. The sensiblc investigation would be one on M;het:her dysiexic family members have a distifict braill phezzotype and whether a similar '%rain signature" exists in those individuds who do not have behavioral: signs of dyslexia but whose children do (e.g., Mike B r o m and his two daughters). Recent advmces in neu-

mimaging techniques allow us to conduct noninvasive studies anci thus make it possible to study not mly healthy adu,lts but also childrctn and elderly persons. There is no doubt that within the next few years researchers will conduct farnily newaimaging studies that search Em brain correlates of poor reading transmit&d in dyslexic families. Is Dyslexia Hereditary? A nunnber of converging lines of evidence suggest that developmental dysiexia for at least s w e of its forms) is hereditary; c ~ n etype of evidence comes from twin studies (also see Olsarr, this volume); another comes horn family studies of dyslexia.

In cltescribing twin studies relevant to understmeiing the role of genes in the etiology of dyslexia, it is necessary to distinguish between (1) twin studies of concordance rates, which utilize a design where twin pairs arc ~ c r u i t e dbased on one of the individuais in the pair hawing cltyslexia and the rates of concordance (both twins having dyslexia) and, discordance (only one twin having dyslexia) arc deternined and (2) twin studies of reading achiewement whero both twins are recruited si~nultaneously. These two types of studies provide quditatively differctnt idormation: The research of type I allows an evaluatim of the hypothesis of the hereditary basis of dysiexia as a clinical cortdition, whereas the research of type 2 can estjrnate heritability coefficients 'or the translnission of various hdicators of reading performance.

Coureordance Rate Studies 11%the first twin study af dyslexia, Hermann (1959) fomd that all 10 (100 percent) identical (mnozygous-MZ) twin pairs were concordant for reading disability in contrast to only 11 out of 33 (33 percent) fraternal (dizygous-DZ) pairs. Zerbin-Rudin (1967) summarized seweral case studies of b!fZ and DZ twins in wh,ich at kast one mennber of every pair had readjng problems. She rcported that in a sample of 17 and 34 DZ pairs, the concordance rates were 101) percent and 35 percent, respectively. Bakwin, (1973), through a population-based twin registry at a local mother-of-twins club, selected 62pairs of twirts inwhich at least one twin was dystexic. The cmcordmce rates werl, 84 percmt for MZ pairs and 211 percent for DZ pairs. Decker and Vandenberg (1985) reported similar concordance rates (85 percent and 55 percent, respectively; for MZ, and DZ pairs) for a sample selected in the frame of tbr Coloradcl twin study

of wading disability UclI;ries, Fulker, a d LaBuda (l"387)also presented evidence Sor a silr;niicant genetic etiology of dyslexia by applying multiple-regression analysis to data collected from. a sample of 64 pairs of MZ, twil.~ and 55 pairs of DZ twins, in which at least one member of the pair was reading disilbled. Thus unless there is something about being m MZ twin, besides having an identical genetic makeup, that could lead, to cowcurrence of reading failures in both twins, d of these studies suggest that genetic factors are important: in develapmental dyslexia- Indeed, rather high MZ concordance rates, in comparison to the DZ concordance rates of just under 50 pertlent f o u d in these shdies, indicate the presence of genetic influences in developmental dyslexia. Twin Stgdt'es of R e a d i ~ Aeizievement g It has been suggested that the etiology of dyslexia may not be distinct from the etiology of the normat distribution of rttaciing skills (cf. Perfete l"384; Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1996). Stanovich (1990) noted that dyslexia exists on a continurn rather than as a discrete entity, and the borderline between disordered and normal functionhg may therefore be somwhat abitrary. If so, causal influences resulting in dyslexia should be essentially the same as the ones Fnrportant fnr the development of normal rt.adU.~gperformance. Based on this consideration, =searchers applied the classic twhs-reared-together d e s i g ~to~estimate the relative impact of genetic and. environmental, effects on the etiology of normal ~ a d i n achievements g (Otson, this volume). A vast number of studies have reported MZ and DZ twin correlations for various measures of readirtg performance (for review, see Grigorenko, 1996). MZ, correlatbns art? uniformly greater than DZ correlations, suggestbg tlhe presence of gemtic influence. However, heritability estimates have varied Some of this variability can be attributed to the fact that in the majority of studies the sample size was relativefy small, so the standasd errors of the hwroad-semse heritability coeffident, which points to the estimated proportion of the gcrnetic: component in the phenotype variation but does not prwide any mcrw informaticm beyond this assertion) estimates are relatively large. In addition some twin studies suggest that d y certah readmg-related skilfs are inherited, Thus it has been s h a m that rttaciing cognition, spdling, digit span, and phanological coding show signjficant heritability, whereas reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and orthographic coding do not (Olson, Wse, Corners, Rack, & Fulker, 19856). For example, for rt~acjingrecognition, heritat?ility has been estimated as 45 percer~t(Brooks, Fulker, & DeFries, 1990). HeritabiIity estimates for spelling have ranged from approxi-

mately 21 percent to 62 percent (Brooks et al., 1990; Petrill & nompson, f 994). Altogether, for various reading factors and scales, heritability estimates range d w n from '79 pescent (Martin & Martin, 1975) to 10 percmt (Cmter, 1973). When multivariate analyses were applied, researchers showed that heritability coefficients estimated jointly for word recognition and phonological coding were srthstantialiy higher than for worcl recogni2ion and orthographic codkg (DeFries et al., 1991). The low heritability and genetic covasimce estimates for orthographic codislg suggest that this skill is most likely influenced by environmmtal forces. Thus researchers cmcltrded that what is inherited appears to involve the phondogical aspects of readhg disability However, this conclusion was challenged in the recent study of Hohnen and Stevensan (19951, who bund strong genetic influelnce on both phonologicd and orth0graphi.c components of reading pmcesshg. Wadsworth, Gillis, and DeFries (1990) employd multiple-regression techniques to test a hypothesis, suggested by Stevenson and others (19871, that the genetic etiology of rcaditlrg djsability may differ as a function of age. The clbtalned heritability estimates varied for younger and older twjns. This finding was consistant with the hypothesis that genetjc hctors may be less important as a cause of reading disability in older children (DeEries, Olson, Pennington, & Smith, 1991). I-lowever, the sample was not l q e enough to obtain statist.icailysignifitant diffe~ncesbetween the estimates. This research group also studied the gmetic and environmentaf causes of the phenotypic association bet\nieen r e a d i ~ ~ g performance and verbal short-term rnernory (Wadsworth, DeFries, Fulker, Ollsun, & Pemington, 1995). ResuXts of bjvariate bet-ravioral genetic allalyses indiuate that both reading ability and verbal short-term memory are highly heritabl.e and that a substantial proportion of their phenotypic correlation is due to common genetic influences. In summary, all twin studies suggest that some components of reading performance, most likely phonological codi,ng, sbow hjgh broad-sense heritabiliv estirnatcrs, suggesting the hvolvement of genetic factors. I-lowever, these findings should be interpreted cautiously becaux estiof e1nmates of heritability (and cmversely, estimates of the contributio~~ ental factors) have varied across studies and measures. h addition, tbe base rates of reading disa:biljty could be different in a popdation of twins and Che popdation of singletons. For example, in the 1975 Australian nationwide study of school performance, Hay md. colleagues (HaypC)"&rien,Johnston, & Prior, 19M) showed that by the age of bufteen only 42 percent of twin boys had achieved adequate stmdards of l i eracy compared with 71 percent of single-born boys.

Researchers characterize developmental dyslexia as an etiologically and functisnalry hetemgeneous clinical condition (Eltis, 1985;Jorm, 1979) that nonrandomly aggregates in families with s m e subtypes having a genetic etialogy Ph~ucci,Guthrie, Childs, abbe^ & Childs, 197%;Halfgre~~ 1950). The risk for reading disability is greater ammg relatives of dyslexic probmds than in the general popula"cio~z (Childs 8r Fhucci, 1983; &Fries &f Decker, 1982; Olson, this volume; Pemington, 1991; Wolff & Wlngailis, 1994). Shtdies of familial risk report that 40 percent of boys and 18 percent of girls with an affected p a n t show dyslexia (Pezznington & Smith, 19138).This incidence rate approximates a sevenfold increase in boys and a twelvefold increase in girls over the estimated population risk ( R u ~ ~ s e1992)y;

What Is the Pattern of Transmissz'srz of Dyslexia? In order to understand the pattern of trmsmission of developmental dqlslexia in famities with rc-rading problems, researchers ccrncfucted a number oE segregation analyses, fitting different statistical models corresponding to various patterns &rough which the genes can be trmsmitted in famities. Same inwestigattsrs have concluded that familial dyslexia is transmitted in m autosornal (not sex-lhked) domhant mode (Childs 8r Fhucci, 1983; Hallgren, 1950), whereas others have found only partial (Pemfngton et al., 1991) or no support for an autosmat or cdominant pattern of transmission. These fbdings were interpreted as suggest..in.g that specific reladlng disability is geneticdly heterogeneous (Fhucci et al., 1976; Lewitter, DeFries, &: Elston, 1"bKO).Researchers (Pennington et al., 1991) also conducted comp1ex segregation analyses of a quditative dyslexic phenotype. These phendypic scores were obtajned by applying discrimimant weights estimated from an an*sis of the Peaboety I~~dividual Achieveme~ztTest (PIAT) Iteading Recognitiozz, Reading Comprehezzsion, and Spelling subtest, The results suggested that dyslexia was tran* mitted in a m d e cmsistent with a major gene (additive or darninant). Gilger and colleagues (Gager, Bnrecki, DeFrks, & Pennington, 1.994) reported on genetjc segregation analyses performed on a quantitative phenotype (derked as in Pemingtcm et al., 1991) of members of families ascertained through normal, nondisabled readers. The findings indicated the presence of familid transmission of the phmotype in which a significant amount sf variance could be attributed to a major gene. Thus there is no consensus in regard to the nnnde of transmission of dyslexia. Some researchers suggest that specific reading disability is litkely to be polygenic m d influenced by the environment (Decker & Ben-

der, 1988). A general model-free approach to polygenic phenomena, quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping, has been applied (Cardon et al., 1994; Fulker et al., 1991) to allow the loca_lizatimof individual genes that contribute to the devebgment of dyslexia, which is presrtmed to be defhed by multiple genes, In addition to working with dyslexic phenotypes, researchers shtdied patterns of fmiliariv cJf psychological and newpsychological traj,ts relevant to reading disability For examplc:, Ashton and cdleagues (Ashton, Polovina, &f Vandenberg, 1979; Bosecki &f AsRton, 1984) reported m the presmce of major gene effects for spatial and vocabulaq tests. Wotff and Melnga,ilis (1994) have started a family study of dysjexics wherejn, along with using traditional.means of diagnosixzg dyslexial they have shtdied deBeits of kmporal organization on tasks of bimanual motor coordiz~atianand motor speech, assuming that these impairments may identify one develoymentally stable, physiologicaIly ptausible, and li~~guisticdly neutral behaviorat phenovpe in familial efysfexia. Decker and DeFries (1980) studied the response. c?lf dyslexics to tests of rigbt and left hemispheric functions, They found that parents and siblings of the ~ading-disabledprohands etemonstrated pattcrns of deficits in reading and cog~zitivcprocessing speed but not in spat-ial reasoning. Mareover, researchers point to some additiional facts that appear to be ~ l a t e dto the familial nature of dyskxia, For example, W~lffand Mefngailis (1994) found that sibs in families with two affected parcm.t.s are at greater risk and tend. to be more severely impaired than sibs in h i l i e s with one affected parent. These findings point to a posdifity of the irnportance of additive genctic effects that might play an important modifying role hfamilially transmitted developmntaf dyslexia, Several shdies have suggested. &at assortatke matbg may be an important factor in stdying dydnxic pedigrees (C;ilger, 1991; WoEf & Melngailis, 1994).Thus examhation of dyslexic families with tvvo affected parents may "disclose dknensions in the etic,Iogy and pathophysiology of developmental dyslexia that hvould not be apparent if such fadties were excluded"' (W0l.g gL Melngailis, 1994, p. 130). Moreover, Hanehuth, Gager, Smith, and Pemington (1994)showed that a child's risk for dyslexia is cmlditi-011ed upon the current parental reading skzlls. Even though the mechanism of this effect is yet to be understood ( m d it is clear that the effects of genes and M y envi m t are confounded in these fmilies), this finding is clkically useful (Smith, 1992). Thus a heal&-carcl practitioner or cducator should a h a y s consider the family history of a child because the prognosis for a child of a once-affected, adequately compmsated adult is much better than that for a child of a 011ce-affected, still-affect& adult. In sum, a convincixzg amount of evidence has been accurndated sugge&ing that at least some propclrtion of developmental dyslexia has a ge-

netic basis. However, it should be noted that the precise mechmisms of the transmission of dyslexia arc not: clear. In addition, in interpreting iarnily data, researchers are a1wa)is awam oi the fact that estimates of genetic varimce may not be =liable because of shared enviro ily experkaces and attitudes that can inflate the indices of gelnetic similasiq.

m i c h Get-zesAre Zsaaolved in the Transmissiota @Dyslexia? The ultirnate god cJf a genetic study cJf a monogenlc cmtfiticm is lc~lathg and isolaling the wsponsible gem. The absence of expressian of this gene in individuals with a trait, or direct demonstration of a correlation of mutations in the gene and in the phenotype, constitutes powerhl evidence that the gelne plays an important role in causing the studied characteristic. Once located, the protein product encoded. by the gene may permit. a physiological explanation for its rote in normd processes m diseases. Research may eventualry lead to the developmat of nccv intervent.ions (both biological and nmbiological) that may lessen the effects of dysfunctional gene pmducts. Finaily, the isolation of a gme rrtight allow for gene therapy, replackg a "defective'hmutant gene with a normally hnctioning copy (Billhgs, Beckwit.h, & Alper, 1992; Kdd, 1931). Usillg cunent molecular techiquc~sof Lirrkage analysis, investigators have carefully studied selected family trees (pedigrees) of dyslexic individuals in which developmental dyslexia, renccurs in different generations. The results of one early study suggested that a major gene fur dyslexia was located on the Short arm of chromosome 15 (Pennington et al., 1991; Smilh, Khberling, Pemington, & Lubs, 1983; Smith, Pennington, Kixnberling, & Ing, 1990). Fulker and colleagues (1991) followed up these findi,ngs by selecting from the origind extended-family study a samplc of siblings who represented lower levels of reading ability. They applied multiple-reg~ssiontechiques, and their results also pointed to c h m o s o m e 15. Ho\vever, subseqrxmt moleedar linkage studies, which included the same dyslexia pedigrees, refuted the original findings (Lubs et al., 1994; R a b h et al., 1993; Cardon et al., 19%). Furthennm, independent investigators who examined Danish families with an autosomal dominant pattern of trmsmissim for dyslexia were also unable to rt.pli.cate the cbrcrrnosome 15 finding (Bisgaard, Eibert;, Moller, Neihbar, & Mohr, 19887). .A screen of other regions of the genome revealed chromosome lp as a htcus that provided moderate evidence for linkage to dyslexia (Rabin et al., 1993; Slnilh et d.,f 983), Coincidentdly, Fmster and colleagues (1993) have identified a German iamily h which dyslexia and delayed speech development coseg~gatewith a balanced tradocation (rearrangement

of chomossmal material) between chromosomes 1 m d 2. This observation suggests linkage to a gene on the distal region of the short: arm of chromosome I or the long arm of chromsome 2. However, in at least m e subsequent stuciy (Cardcm et al., 199.21, interval mapping analyses of the Rh regi011 markers yielded no evidcnce fnr linkage at any Locali.otl. Lubs and colleagues (1991) identified a family with a translocation with a fusion of chromosomes 13 and 14. Six of ithe seven family members with the translocation also have dyslexia; however, there is one dyslexic member of the family who does not have the translocation. Thus, this farnily pmvides a possible clue that there rnight be another gene associated with dyslexia on chromosome 13or 14. mese researchers also conducted random genome testing that hcluded selected markers on chomosomes 14, C;, 8,9,11,13,14-16, and 18-21 (Lubs et al., 1992). No significant:results were obtained. .A number of investigators (Hansen, Nerup, & Holbek, 1986; Hugdahl, Synnevag, & Saltz, 1990; tl-thita, 1988) hypothesized a possible association between dyslexia and autoimmum disorders. Resdts of their studies have suggested that rates of autohmune diseases arc elevated in re1atives of dyslexic probands and that the incidence of dyslexia is increased i,n relatives of probands having a.ut.oimune illness. Althnugh the causal basis of the association is unhown, the evidence for association from these independent studies points to the humm leukocyte antigen (HllJA)cmplex, located on. the short arm of clfnromosome 6, as a candidatc region (Penningtm, Smith, Kiderling, Green, & Haith, 1387). Interval mapping of data from two ineiepmdent sarnples of 114 sib pairs, with at least orle disabled, revcded evidclce for linkage between rcading disability and the HLA region on chromosome 6 (Cardon et al., 19914). Analyses of corresponding data from m indepedent sample of 50 dizygotic twin pairs &so provided evide~~cc for linkage to the HLA complex. However, these findings do not hold for reanalyses when dyslexia is defhed as a categorical conditbn according to clinicd (D5M-Ill-R-based) diagnosi" (Cardon, et. al., 1,994). In addition, the continuous diagnosis, used in this study, was based exclusively on the perceptive vocabdary and verbal IQ measures. Thus Mthe~asthe applied mee~odologyseems very pronnising for the analyses of continuous traj,ts, the analyzed trait, even though it is associated with specific reading disability, may reflect an overwhehlng influence of verbal IQ, Bath of the earlier genetic firrdi-ngs (chromosome 6 and chromosome 15) have been replicated, in an FRdependent sample of dyslexic families (Grigorenko et al,, 1997). What is especially interesting is that both genetic regions-the chrnmosome 6 regio~n,loc&ed in Ihe neighborhood of the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) complex, and the chromosome 15 ~ g i o n associated , with the pmductim of 2-microglobulin-ar13 loci im-

m e disorders. This link might suggest that plicated in human autoi some autoimmune disturbance of the developmental organism might be a primary insult to the brain that in turn results in distuibances of the blood E Z w to various ~ g i o n of s the brain, iwluding those engaged in reading.. In summary, linkage studies have pointed to s m e rclgims of interest that are spread m a number of chromosomes tl-troughout the human genome. None of these findjngs can be refemd to as "the true result,'" and more research in the same regions is needcd. When these h d i n g s are translated to the level of individual BisAled readers, like those members of the Brown family clescribed previousb, &see observations are irnportant, First, differential linkage of djfferent phenotypes to different chromosomal ~ g i o n rnight s be indicative of the genetic hekrogeneity of developmental dyslexia. It mitiyht be that the genetic cause of reading problems inAdam" family is different from the genetic cause of dyslexia in the family of Cloria" husband. Moreover, there codd be different gehetnetic causes of dyslexia wit_hin Adm's famnily itself-such ge~~etic erogeneity might be the rclason for all the djfferent behaviord mani.festa.g seen among the Browns. Second, similar tions of r e a d i ~ ~problems remediatinnall efforts wilhin a given family might have djffercntiai success. Whereas Mike completely compensated for his childhod reading prabtems, Adam carried them, wen though to a lesser degree, fimughout his life- 'These individual differaces in receiving and wsponding to remediational help are matters for special investigation. The third. ubservaticm has to do with the degree of severity of etevelopmental dyslexia, even within one farnity, As is obvions in the case of the Brwns, severity v a k s . One more unanswered question is why this is so. Three converging lines of evidence have been reviewed to support the working hypothesis of the nature of develoipmental dyslexia suggested in this chapter. To =iterate in broad terms, the working hypothsis ass u e s that a metalinguistic deficit, characteristic of dyslexicrs in any tanguage, is linked to a brain pat;lern that resdls fsom specific genetic mechanisms. This hypothesis is an eznpty frame that yet needs to be filled with concrete scientific results and robust, reflicable findings. Much work remains! The last issue to be addressed here concerlns the kind of scientific speculations about the natuse of developmental dyslexia that arc permitted by the working hypothesis fomulated at the beg ter.

Reaching Beyond the Evidence Develoymental dyslexia is one of many common familial disorders that does not conform to simple Mendelian expectations. Genetic exptana-

tions of dysiexia have had to rely mostty on evidclnce from twin and segregation studies, but lhese results intersect consistently in Ihe hypothesis of the presence of the genetic endowment for dyslexia. tn addition, the struch;lral and hnctional studies of dyslexic brains point tlr traces of genetic influences during brain development. Moreover, the rapidly accumulating evidence suggesting that developmental dyslexia, is lanpagefree, at least in one of its forms relevant to phonological impairmat, also suggests a possibility of universal genetic mchanisms governing the manifestation of dyslexia acrass different Ihguistic systems. Thus because the results of diffemnt avenues of resemh cclnwerge and lead to the s m e conclusion, the rnle of genes in the etiology of dyslexia appears to be significant, Yet the path f r m the belief that genes are important tlr identxfying specific genes influencing specific behaviers is not a straight or simpk o12e. how eve^, there are many ways in which genetk studies of specific disabilities might tum out to be very pmductive. First, it might occur that some gemtic causes of dyslertia become understood prior to the discovery of neuropsychological and behavioral profiles specific to dyslexia. This would lead to more precise phenowpe definition and subtyping. The identifcatirtn cJf etilrlogicat correlates might contribute to djdferential djagno"s; Chcn, if subgroups of dyslexic individuals who s:bow physiologiral or genetic abnormalities are found, a specific set of copi"cive c ~ neuropsychological r characteristics =presenting m important behavioral diagnosi,~and practical recommendations would follow CrlecXcer 8r: Beder, 1988; Smith et al., 1990). For examgle, if: a familial suhtype of dyslexia turns out to be tinked to the immune system, that finding would be important in regard to treating dyslexia as well as for delivering the message to the public that an abnormal immlane system may manifest itself through rr.adj_ltgproblems. Second, dyslexia is a type of neuropsychiatric disorder that, following traditions of classic human genetics, might be useful in attempts to mderstmd the normal functioning of the human brain (Kidd, 1991). As mentioned, there is constant debate in the field about whether dyslexia is a qualitatively different condition or simply a uni.que combination of individual differences, many of which happen to be distributed betow two standard deviations on. the normal. ctlrve. Distinct subtypes suggest distinct causes for different reading disabaities, such as localized brait1 impairments or single-gene inheritance patterns. Continuws distributions suggest multiple causes and polyge~nicrnodels of Inheritance (DeFries & Deckelr, 1982; Pennington et al,, 1W530). This is also true far the distribution of ~ a d i n gabftity If disabled ~ a d e r are s liistinctly separated from the normal djstibution of reading abiity, single-gene factors or some uniquc envirmmentaf insults will be likely. An alternate view is that due to polytjenic inl-reritance patterns and/or continuously varying enviro

inflrtences, disabled rttatlers are very low in the specific copitive skills needed for narmal reading, just as superior readers may be very high in these critical skills (Olsm et al., 1985, p, 50). Again, through utilizing genetic studies, a reversl-, movement is possible-if genetic causes of dyslexia are understood first, then the indivjduai-differences-versusyuatitatkely-different-condition debate rnight be resolved. Third, the hypothesis formulated Zly Galaburda and supported by others (Chase &- Tallal, 1,995; Mynd, 1992), which states that dyslexia is a disorder of brain developmnt rather than a disorder of metabolism/hnction in a structurally normal brain, appears to be more and more plausilble in the context of current findhgs in the field, of developmental genetics, h recent years, a great deal has been learned about the difkrentiatian of individxlal nerve cells, their organdes, and their synaptic contacts (Rakic, 1988, p. 33). However, the meanjng of these events is still not understood in terms of building a complex ceflutar assembty such as tbe netr cortex- Sutcliff (1,988) nnaintains that tens of thousands of genes are expressed in the adult brain alone. X n addition, there are many genes that control the developmmt of the brain and t k diaferentiation 05 various neurons, For example, researchers have just started in~restigatingthe ways in which genes guide the movement of neurons to the cortex, having &covered a number of mutations deratifing neurons cm their jolarney to the hig3lly ordcrcd cortex Parinaga, f 996). 7i,date, molecular neurobiologists have identified. only a diminutive portion of the genes that could, by matfunctionfng, cause stmctural and/or functional abrzormaiities in the centrd nervous system. The field is at the stage Ml)nerc, once more, we recognize our ignorance: Virtually nothing is known about genes that cmtml the differentration of neurons or those that cmtrol the establishment of connections. Evidence is accumulating that certain multigem families (horsreogenes) participate in pattern formation and segmentation in animal development (Dressier & Gruss, 1988; Melton, 1991). Mouse and drosophjla models will help to decipher the role of highly evolutionary conserved genes called homeoboxes in the control of gene erc~)resion,in diverse regulatory cmtext, and in embryonic pattern formtion (Shashikmt et al., 1,493). The DNA-binding properties of the protein products of homenbox genes, the patterns of their expression, and the high prt-cision of their functions suggest that these genes may form system that are highly specific and effective in terms of ewisinned inhrmatim. ""Such a system not o d y w d d be cybermetically regulating the exp~ssionof its component genes, but also might be ~ s p o n s i v eto input (envi,ronmemta,l)information, and, in turn, function to coordinate the patterns of expression of effector genes. Presumably, effector genes woufd be those directly involved in growth and morphogenesis, as, for

instance, genes encoding growth factors, receptors, stmctural proteins, etc.""(Kappen, Schqhart, & Rudde, 1989, p. 251). Fourth, the afomentjmed pIasticity of genetic systems and their ability to utilize environmmtal infornation are indicative of the existence of the complex squence of bidircctianal, interacting causes that make it almost impossible to separate defnik d e s of genotype and environment unless a major gene is identified. According to the h d i n g s discussed in this chapter, dyslexia is, mast plausibly; a complex condition that emerges at the intersection of biological and enviro ental hfluences, reflecting and respcmdk~gto both detrimental and diatianal effects of nature and nurture. Modem neuroscience is revisixrg its view of the brah. It suggests that richess of enviro ent is essential for maintaining healthy neurons m d viable connections arnong them (Bari,nga, 1992) and that learning actually modifies the physical stmcture of cells, not just their chemical, contents (Purves, 1988). The plasticity of the human brain and its depene ~ ~provide t an. explmation for why remediation dence on e n v i r o ~ ~ mcan efforts work in dyslexia cases. The hardware-software metaphor previously often used in regard to the living brain does not really hold anymore, since evidence in a n i m l research has accumulated to support the fact that experience continues to alter the connections throughout life. More and more fascinathg details are learned every day about the links between genes and the brain. Far example, Goodman and colleagues (Davis, Schuster, & Goodmm, 1996; Schuster8Davis, Fetter, & Goodman, 1996a, 1996'8)might have fomd a solutrion to the central mystery of plasticity. Their research is concerned with the question of how changes in gene expression in a nemon that has many axons and. many synaptic connections can alter the strength of only some (JI its synapses. Goodman and colleagues' studies suggest that- the neuron nucleus manages the assembly of synaptic stmcture, whercas local biorrhemical factors in hdividuat axms determine where in the nerve cell the synaptic structure gets pfaced. And other reseaschers have suggested that the cells on the other sick of the synaptic conmctim become engaged in the cmpletion of the synaptic renovation Woush, 1996). C)n the bash of what we have learned from m d e r n molecdax biology, nothing is driven exclusively by genetic or environmental forces (cf. Wahlsf;en clIr Gcrttlieb, 1997). tinder appropriate conditions, the gene is transcribed into messenger WA, and then translated into a polygeptide mofecuXc that may function as an enzyme, hormone, or structural element of a cell. The gene codes fur the sequence of amino acids in the polygeptide and a gene metabolic activity can be documented by molecular techniques that allow us to determine the presence of antibodies specific for the protein in ques.ticm or even to look at the complementary

DNA probes that bind to a specific sequence of thr mRNh molecule. The modem results are hdjcative of the fact that most genes are active for restricted periods oi time and in limited areas. The gene itself is subject to control by its surroundings and c ot govern itself. The stimuli switching a gene on or off are transmitted by the cytopasm of the cell (Blau et al., 1985) and can originate in the external envirmment of the animal (e.g., Zwilska & Wawrocka, 1993). A variety of envircl provoke a cascade of events that turn on a class of "imediate-early'" genes, which in turn d e a s h a diverse multitude of f u r t h r molecular events (Sager & Sharp, 1993). Learning and memory i w o h e the cont trollled actions of numerous genes (Kaczmarek, 1993). Thus regulates the actions of genes, and. genes, via cbanges in the tem, influence the sensitivity of an organism to changes in the enwironment . From what can be predicted non; the immediate future of research on complex human traits will be devoted to studying the complexity of the interaction between genes and environment. Regarding dyslexia, this shift of paradigms might help to understand the phenomenon of compensation. Remecfiation matters even when the condition is geneticatly determined! eless, the theoretjcal redization of this complexity of gene-envi interactions does not lead researchers to a direct mdtrrstanding of the biological basis of the functioning of genetic webs. Moreover, only knokvledge of specific genes, their functions and surroundings, can help us to randerstand learning, memory, intelligence, language, and reading. There can be no meaningful and valid =presentation of the biolow of the hurnan brain and behavior without positive knokvledge of the gmes irtvolved. The only way is to try to find these genes. Ei~~ally, stuifies of the biology of dyslexia and its genetic grounds might help us to understand the puzzle of the evolution of the humm brain in gmeral and of human hi&er m t a l functions in particular. It is pcssibIe that reading, as a skitl, underwent remarkabte changes in the course of hunan history. The universality of complex languages and their written mpresentatims is a discovery that impels linguists and psychologists to wonder wheCher linguil;tic systems are not just a cultural hven.t.iosr but also the product of a specific trajectory of human development. And like any developing structure, reading might have =&aped, and this =shaping mfght have been caused by (or be a cause of) sorne corresponding change in the brain. For example, Saint Aug~~stine, the Christian theologian (AD 400), when writing about the bi&op of Milan, Saint Ambrasc;?,remarked with astonishment upon the fact that Ambrose could read silently; not pronouncing any words aloud (Augusthe, 1928, 6.3). Speculating on this remark, historians (Gavrilov, 1985) have sugg e & d that in those times, the majority of readers knew only how to read

aloud; they did not practice ~ a e i i n gsilently to themsdves. It is pfausible that cornparathe genetic studies of popdations whose linguistic systems differ will reveal some clues about the evolutionary path oE normal and dyNLexic reading in modem civitizatim, T'ke field of genetic research, on neu,ropsychiakic condjtions is on the veqe of a breakt-hmgh. Detection of genetic factors associated with psychiatric disorders has not pmgrrssed at the pace origir~allyhoped for and anticipated in the frame of ""oldhiews of complex disorders (Be%, Mullican, Maestri, & Shore, 1994). En the late 1980s, hvestigators hoped that the theory of Mendelian irrheritmce woutd serve as a strong tJReoretical background for discoveries of major gelnes operative h complex human conditions and that the only problem on the path to these discoveries was the relative weakness of taboratory methoclologies. Since the late f 980s, the study of connplex humm disorders has been mrked by the astonishin.gl.y rapid and extensive developmnt of new laboratory techniyul~sand methods of data analysis, but no comprehmive cmceptuaiization of the hi,ology mderlying complcx human disorders has beern proposed. Moreover, since about 19533, the field has experienced a n m ber of dramatic discoveries of genetic mechmisms of various neuropsychiat-ric conditions, m y of which deviate from Mendelian laws. As dialectics predict, now is the tirne for conceptual developments. It is hoped that this expected reeonceptua1iz"tim in the field of neuropsychiatric genetics will, also lead to finding the missing inl.erli,nkages within Ihe triad of ""behavioral manifestations of dysIexia--.undcrlyingbrain pattems-respective genetic mechanismsf"m d bring us closer to an understanding of the laws of the normat and abnormal development of Che "reading organ.

References Ackerman, F" T., Dyckman, R. A., Oglesby, D. M., (4r Newton, J.E.O. (1994). EEG pawer spectra of cf.rildren with dyslexia, slow learners, and nclrmaIly reading children with ADD during verbal processing. Jclur~zaEoflcarrzi~zgDisabilities, 27, 619-630. Ashton, G, C., Polovina, J. J., CZr Vandenberg, S, G. (1979).%@@gationanalysis of family data for I5 tests of cognitive ability, Bclmz~iurGenefics, 9,329-38. Augustine. Co~fessions,New York: Penguin Books, 197%. Bailty L. (1990). La dyslexic en 3990 [Dyslexia in 19901. Pempecfives Psyclfiafriques, 2dr 229-2272. Bakwin, H. (1973). Reading disabiliv in twins. D~uelopnfenfal Medicine and Cllild Ncurott7gyr 2 5,184-187. Barinaga, M, (19%). The brain remaps its own contours. Scie~ce,258,216-218. Barinaga, M. (1996). Guiding neurons tcr the cartex. Scknce, 274,1000-1004.

Berg, K., Mulliean, C., Maestri, N., & Shore, D. (19941, Psychiatric genetic research at the National Institute of Mental Health, American fazfrnal oJMediml Genetics (nieztropsychi~~ t~*icGeneticsl, 54,295-299. B e ~ e rM,, ; Yule, W., CZr Rutter, M. (1975). Attainment and actjwtment in I-mro geographical areas. 11: The prevalence of specific reading retardation. British lournnl ofPspcf.l.inl.qt 225,54&549, Billing, P. R., bchvith, J., & AXper, J. S. (1992). The genetic analysis of human befraviclr: A new era? Sociai St.ietzce and Medicine, 3,227-238. Bisgaard, M . L., Eiberg, H., Moller, N., Neihbar, E,, CZr Mohr, J. (1987). Dyslexia and chromosome 15 heteromorphism: Negative lc~d%ores in a Danish sample. Clinical Gelzefics,3z2,118-119. Blau, H. M., Pavlath, G. K., Hardeman, E. C., Cfioy-Pik C., Silberstein, L., Webstex; S. G., Miller, S. C,, & Webste~; C. (1Cd85). Plasticity of the differentiated state. Science, 230, '758-'7%. Bnrecki, I, B., & Ashton, G, C. (1984). Evidence for a major gene influencing perfclrmance on a t~ocabularytest. Be!nvi;or Cenefks, IdI 63-59. Bnuma, H,, & Legein, C. P! (1980).Dyslexia: A specific recoding deEicit"iln analysis of response Xatencies for letters and words in dyslexics and in average readers. Meurapspcbiology, 18,285-298. Bradley, L,, & Bryant, I? E, (1983). Categorizing sound and learning to read: A casual cunnedion. N~ture,301,419421. Brooks, A., Fulker, B, W, 8a: DeFries, J, C. (1990). Reading performance and gen.eral cognitive ability: A multivariate genetic analysis of twin data. Personality alzd Indiztidunt Lf2flcrrgl-rces,11,141-146, Bryant, ]P. E., (4r Bradley, L. (1985). 61.aildrenisrmdilzg prabletns. Oxford: Blackwell. Canterf S. (19R).Some aspects of cognitive functim in twins. In G, Claridge, S. Canteu; CZr W. I. Hurne (Eds.), Personality dtflerencczs and biologiml varkfl'ons: A study of twins. Oxford, England: Pergamcm Press. Cardon, L. 13, Smith, S. D., Fulker, D. W., Kiderling, ttl, J., Pemington, B, F,, & DeFries, J. C. (1994). Quantitative trait Xocut; for reading disability on chromosome 6. Ser'cmce, 266,276279. Cardosc~Martins,C . (1995). Sensitivity to rhymes, syllabtes, and phonemes in Xiteracy acquisition in Pr>rtuguese.Reading Rescrardr Qlmrferly, 27, 4 53-462. Cassinii, A., Ciarnpaiinj, L., Adriana, 1,.(1984). La disfessia in ItaXia. Strurnenti di rilevaziclne e ineidenza in alcune regioni (Dyslexia in Italy: Detedian instruments and the incidence in some regions). Eftl Eztoltrtizla, 28,66-73. Chase, C, H,, & Tallal, P. (1991). Cognitive models of developmental reading disorders. In J. E., Obrzut & G. ttl, Hynd (Eds.), NeuropsycliroEogicalfoz~ndntionof learnitzg disabilifics ( p p . 199-240). New York: Academic Press. Childs, B,, CZr Finucci, J. M. (1983). Genetics, epidemiology and specific reading disabitlity. In Rutter M. (Eci.), Deuelspntenlal psyctziafty (pp. 507-52 53). New Yc3rk: Cuilfc>rd, Cohen, G. (4r Freeman, R. (197%). Individual differences in reading strategies in relation to handedness and cerebral asymmetry, In I, Requin (Ed.), A f t e n t i o ~and performanw VIX (pp. 411-28). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Coltheard, M. (1938). Lexical access in simple reading tasks, In C, Underwood (Ed.), S fm tegies in illfinrzaticrn yroeessirzg (pp. 151-216). London: Academic Press-.

Coltheard, M, (1980). Deep dyslexia: A right hernisphel-e hypothesis, In M. Coltheard, K. Patterson, & J. C. Marshall (Eds.), Deep dyslexia (pp. 32&380)., London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Coltheard, M,, Curtis, B. Atkins, F!, & Haller, M, (1993).Mc~delsof reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel distributed-processing approaches. Psyclullogieal Reviei-u, 100,580-608. Cossu, C., Shankweileu; D., Libennan, I, S., Katz, L., & Tola, C, (1Cd88). Awareness of phonological segments and reading ability in Italian children. Ayplied Psyclzolr'ngzisfics,9, 3-16. Critchley, M. (1970). The dyslexic clzl'ld. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Bavis, G. W., Schuster, C. M,, & Goodman, C. S. (1W6). Genetic dissection of structural and functional components of synaptic plasticity 111. CREB is necessary far presynaptic functional plasticity Neziwn, 3 7, 669479. Decker, S. N., & Bender, B. C. (1988). Converging evidence for multiple genetic fcy'rrrmsof reading disability Elrair-1and Lnlzga~go,33, 197-21 5.. Decker, S. N., & DeFries, J. C. (1980). Cc>gnjtiveabilities in families with reading disabled children. Jozirnnl of Learnitzg Disabiliiies, 13,52 7-522. Decker, S. N., & Vandenberg, S. G. (1985). Colorado twin study of reading disability. In D. Gray cSz: J, Kavanaugh (Eds.), Biobelmvioral mcas~aresofdyslexia, Baltimore: York Press. DeFries?J. C,, & Deckel; S. N.(19821, Genetic aspects of reading disability: A family study In R, N. Malathesah & P! G, Aaron (Eds.), Readi~rgdisorders: Variefies alzd trealmertts (pp. 255-279). New York: Academic Press. DeFries?J. C,, Fulker D. W*, & LaBuda, M, C. (198";7. Evidence a genetic aetic~logy in reading disability in twins. Nature, 329,537-539. BeFries, J. C., Olson, R. K., 13ennington, B. F., cSr: Smith, 5. D, (1991). Colorado Reading 13roject:An update. In D. D. Buane & D. B. Gray (Ects,), The readilfg brain: Tke biolqirnl basis of dyslexia (pp. 53-88), 13arkton,Maryland: York 13ress, Demonet, J. E, Price, C., Wise, R., & Frackowiak, R, S, j, (1994). A PET study of cognitive strategies in normalt subjects during language tasks: Influence of phonetic ambiguity and sequmce prcjcessing on phoneme monitoring. Braizz, 11 7;, 6'714 8 2 . Durgunogu, A. Y., & Oney, B. (submitted). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word reco>gnjtionin Turkish and English. P*(1988). Do multigene families regulate vertebrate deDressiex; G. R., (4r Grussitj, velopment? Trends in Genetics, 4,221 4-219. Duara, R, Kushch, A., Cross-Glenn, K., Jallad, B. J,, Pascal, S., Barker, W, W., Lctewenstein, & Lubs, H, A. (1991). Neuroanatornic differences between dyslexic and normal srlbjects. Archives ofNeurology, 4gt 4440416. Duffyt E H,, Denekla, M. B., BaneLs, P. El,, & Sandini, C. (19f10). Dyslexia: Regional differences in brain electrical activity by topographical mapping. Rnnnls of Neurott7gyr 7,412420. Ellis, A, W. (1985). "fe capitive neuropsychology of deveXopmental (and acNel~ropsycfzology,26,169-205, quired) dyslexia: A critical suuvey. Cc~g~itl'zre Eustis, R. (1947). Specific reading disability. New Engla~djclur~znlofllledkirze, 237, 24S249,

Filipek, P. A., & Kennecly, D. N. (1991). Magnetic resonance imaging: Its role in the developmental disorders. In D, D, Buane & B. 8. Gray (Eds,), The readi~fg bmin: The 21io:ologl'cnlblasis cf dyslexi~(pp. 133-1 60). Fa rkton, MD: York Press. Finucci, J. M., Guthrie, J. T., Childs, A. L., Abbey H., & Childs, B. (1976). The genetics of specific reading disability. Annals #Nzirnnn Cenetics, 40, 1-23. Flowers, D. L,, Woad, E B., & Naylor, C. E, (1991). Regional cerebral blcjod EIow correlates of language processes in reading disability, Arcltives of Neurology, 48, 637443. Flowers, B. L. (1993). Brain basis for dystaia: A summary of work in progress. 1tjurr-ze;tlofllgearr-zingDisabilz'ti~,26) 575-582. Flynn, J.M., Beering, W, Coldstein, M,, & Rahbar, M, H, (1992). Electrophysialogical correlates of dyslexic subtypes. Jwrnnfof Learnirzg Disnbilifies, 25,133-141. Frith, 11. (1985). Bmeath the surhce of developmental dyslexia. In K. E, Patterson, J. C. Marshalt, & M. Coltheard (Eds.), Stlrfnce n"ysIexZa (pp. 301-330). Hillsdales NJ: Erlbaum. Froster U., khulte-Korne G., Hebdrand, J., (4r Remschmidt, H. (1";433).Cowgregation of balanced translocation (1;2) with retarded speech and dyslexia. Lancet, 342,178-1 79. Fulker, D, W., Cardon, L. R, DeFries, J. C., Kimberling, W. J,, Pennington, B. F., & Smith, S. D. (1991). Multiple regressian analysis of sib-pair data on reading to detect quantita tive trait loci. Reading and WrE'fiq:An Inl.erdisei~~l1'11r;t1y lournal, 3, 299-313, Galaburda, A. M. (1990). Address Co tlze 26th Annual Rodin Retnc.ldiatit?nSockty Meeting. Boulder, CO. Gallaburda, A. M., Sherman, G. P. Rosen, G. D. Aboitiz, F., & Geschwind, N. (1985). Developmental dyslexia: fcxtr cmsecultive patients with cortical anoma1ies. A nnnls tlf Ne~ir~logy, 2 8,222-233. Calaburda, A, M. Schrott, L.M,, Sherman, G, F., Kosen, G. D,, & Denenberg, W; H, (1996).Animal models of developmental dyslexia, In C. H. Chase, G. B. Rosen, & G. F. SI-terman (Eds.), Lfez~elopmenfaldyslexia ( p p . 3-14). Baltimore, MD: York 13ress. Garret, A. S., Wm~d,F. B., Flowers, D. L., Absher, J. R. (1997). Glltc~sentefnbolisnt i?z the inferit~rtemporal cortex is related to acczir~cyofpeformn~lceon a Iefter rccogt~if.iota task. Unpublished manuscript. Cilger, J. W. (1991). Biffewntiat assortative mating fc~undfor academic and demographic variables as a function of time of assessment. Behazjiornl Gelzetics, 21, 131-158. Gilger, J. W, B o ~ c k iI., B,, DeFrks, J. C., & Pennington, B, E (1994). Commingling and segregation analysis of reading perfc~rmancein families of normal reading probands. Bel~nviorGenefics, 24,345-356, Glezerman, T. B. (1983). Mozgc?zye disfirnktsii u dctei [Minimal brain dysfunctions in children]. Moscc~w:Nauka. Grigorenko, E. L. (1996).A family study of dyslexia. Unpublished disxrtation. Crigorenko, E. L., Wood, F. B., Meyer, M. S., Hart, L. A,, Speed, W* C., Shuster, A., & Pauls, B. L. (1997). Susceptibility loci far distinct components of develogmental dyslexia on chrornosames 6 and 15, Amcricarl lour~zralof Erlumar~Gerlctics, 1;0,27-39.

Hallgren, B. (1950). Specific dyslexia ("congenital word blindness"): A clinical and genetic study. Rctn Pyctziu trim ef Neurologicra, 2-289. f-lanebuth, E., Gilger, J. W., Smith, S. B., CZr Pemingon, B. F, (1994). &rental cartpensation for clzildhood readi~zgpmbletrzs eflects tlte risk fo fJzeir oflspritzgjor dezlerfopmen faf readis% disardczrs.. UnpubXished manuscript. Hansen, 0. Nerup, J,, & P-ic~lbek,B. (1986). A common specific origin of specific dyslexia and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus? kicferihs, 205,165-167. f-larter, M . R,, AnlXo-Vento, L,, Wood, E B., khroeder, M. M. (1988). Separate brain potential characteristics in children with reading disability and attention def cit disorder: Cotor and letter relevance effects. Brnin and Cognition, 7, 145-140. HarZer, M, R,, Diering, S., &r Woc~d,F. B. (1988).Separate brain pc~tentialcharacteristics in children with reading disability and aBention deficit disorder: Relevance-independent effects. Brairz a ~ Cognition, d 7,554-86, Hay; I).A., OBrien, P. J., Johnston, C. J., & Prior, M. R. (1984). The high incidence of reading disability in twin boys and its implication for genetic analyses. Aek Gerlctime Medicere ef Gemetlc~togiae,33,223-236. d f-lermam, K, (1959). Readi~fgdisability: A nzedical strldy I?( word blindrless n ~ related I?nndicaps,Springf eld, TL: Charles C. Thomas. Hinshelwood, J. (1917). Gojvlgenihl word-bfirzdn~ss.Idondon:tewis & Company Hohnen, B., & Stevenson, J. (1995). Genetic effects in orthographic: ability: A second lank. Bel?ar~i:tior Gencfics, 25,271. f-loien, "1: (1989).La dyslaie: Approche developmentale et proeessuele [Dyslexia: A progressive developmental approach). Psyclr-iratrie de ZZ~lgant,32,617438. Howard, I).,I""attersc>n,K., Wise, R., Brcjwn, D., Frlston, K., Weiller, C., & Frackowia k, R. (1992). The cortical localization of the taicons. Positron emission tomagraphy evidence, Brain, 215, 1769-1782. Hugdahl, K., Synnevag, B., &r Saltz, P. ((1990).Immune and aratoimmrme diseases in dyslexic children. Neuropsyclzakogy, 22&,67&679. Hughes, J. R. (1985). Evaluation of electrc~physio~ogical studies on dyslexia. In D. B. Gray & J. E Kavanaugh (Eds.), Biobeli?aaiornlmeasztm o f d y s l a i ~(pp.71-86). Parkton, MD: York Press. Humphreys, P., Kautman, VV: E,, & Galaburda, A. M. (1990). Developmental dyslexia in women: Neuropsychol%ical findings in three cases. Annals ojNeurology, 28, 72F738. Hynd, G. W. (1992). Neurolc>gical aspects of dyslexia: Comment on the balance madel. huf-rzalof Leafarzi~zgDis~lbilities,25, 11Q-142. Hynd, C. W., Half, I., Navey, E. S., Etic~puIos,D., Black, K., Gonzales, J-J,, Edmonds, J. E., Riccio, C., Cohen, M, (1995). Byslaia and corpus callosum marphology. A rckives @ Nez;lrofogy,52,32-38. Hynd, G. W., Hynd, C. R., SulXiviiin, H. G., & Kingsbury T. B. (1987). Regional cerebral blomd flaw (KBF) in developmental dyslexia: Activation during reading in a surface and deep dyslexic. jourrlnt of Learrzing Disabilities, 20,2634-3620, f-lynd, G. W., CZr Semrud-Clikeman, M, (1989). Dyslexia and brain morphology PsyckologicnI B~lketiu,306,447482.

H p d , G, W., Semrud-Clikernan, M,, Larys, A. K,,Novey, E, S., & EtiopuLos, D. (1990). Brain morphology in developmental dyslexia and attention deficit disorderihyperactivity Archiz~esof Nezarolog, 4;"k 91 9-926. Jorrn, A. F. (1979). The cognitive and neurological basis of developmental 7,19-33. dyslexia. A theoretical framework and review. Cog~~I'Cion, Kacsmarek, L. (1993). Mc~lecularbiology of vertebrate learning: Is c$us a new beginning? Jvltrnlrl of Pdrauroscience Researclz, 34,377-381. Kappen, C., Schughart, K., & Ruddle, F. (1989). Organization and expression of horneobox genes in mouse and man. Annals ofC,'ze Nezu York Academy of Scknees, 567,24%252. Kidd, K. K, (1991). Genes and neuropsychiatric disorders. Social Biology, 38, 163-1 7%. Kirk, S, A,, & Bateman, B, (1962). Diagnosirj and remediation of learning disabilities. ExqClional Cltz'ldre~,29, 72-78. Krasowicz, G, (1993). Dysleksja a rozwoj i zaburzenia mowy [Dyslexia, developmen t, and speech d isordersij. Psychol~~gia Wyctmwnwcza,36,25-35. Kussmaul, A, (187q. Disturbances of speech, In H. von Ziemssen (Ed.) & I, A, McCreery (Trans,), Cyclopedin of tlte practice of ~rzedl'cr'ne.New York: William Woc~d. Lahita R. G. (1988). Systemic lugus erythernatasus: Learning disability in the male offspring of female patients and relations to laterality. F"syeJ~uneztr~~e~zdoerinolagyl 13, 385-396. Larsen, J.P+,Hoien, T., tundberg, l., & Bdegaard, H. (1990).MRT evaluation of the size and symmetry of the planurn temporale in adolescents with develc~pmentaf,dyslexia. Brain and Lnnguagc, 39,289-301. taw, I,, Kanno, I,, &r Fujita, H. (1992). Functional anatomical correlates during reading of morphograms and syllograms in the Japanese language. Bi~l~i!edl'mf Research, 73,51-52. LeFebvre, J, (1978). Dysfaia and simultaneom learning of French and H&rew: Experience in the private schcml Luden d e Hirsch (Paris). Revue Beige de Psyclzotogie eet de Ped~gogie,40,27-30. Leonard, C . M., Vc)eller, K.K.S., tombardion, 1,.J.,Morris, M. K., Hynd, G. W, Alexander, A. W., Andersen, H. G,, Carofalakis, M,, EIoneyman, J. C., Mao, J,, Agee, 8. F., (4r Staab, E-.V. (1993).Anomalous cerebral structure in dyslexia revealed with magnetic resonance irnaging. A rclii'ztesof Neurology, 50,461469. Lewitter, F": I., DeFries, J. C., & Elstczn, R, C. (1980).Genetic models of reading dis~ ~9-30, CS~ abilities. Belmvior G G I F Z C10, Lubar, J. E (1992).Discourse on the development of EEG diagnostics and biofeedback for attention deficitihyperactiviv disorders. Biofeedbaek and Sev-Regulntion, 5, 187-206, Lubs, H. A., Duara, R., tevin, B., Jalfad, B., Lubs, M.-L., Rabin, M., Kushct.1, A., (4r Gross-Glenn, K. (IWI), Dyslexia subtypes: Genetics, behavior, and brain irnaging. Tn D. D. Duane & D. B. Gray (Eds.), Ete rendirrg Z ~ W ~ Y Z :The biological bnsis of dyslexia (pp. 89-118). Parktan, MD: York Press. Luh, K. E,, & Levy, J. (1995). Tnterhemispheric cooperatian: Left is left and right is of Experimetztral Psycho!ogy: right, but sametimes the twain shall meet, Jo~rr~lal Hzlfriat.2X3srceptio~11~ rand Peforrna~ce,22,1243-1258.

tukatela, G., Carello, C., Savic, M,, & Turvey M. 7: (19%). Hemispheric asymmetries in phonological processing. Neuro~~sycl~alagy, 24,341-350. LukateXa, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1991). Phonological access of the lexicon: Evidence from associative priming with pseudochomophones. journal of Experi~zental Psycjtology: Huntnn Pereql.li)ivl nlzd Perfirur.mnce, 17,951-966. tukatela, G,, & Turvey, M. 7: (1993). Similar attentional, frequency; and assaciative effects for pxudohornophc>nesand words. Journal of Ex~?erirnefzl.nl Psychology: H u m a ~Percepliorz alzd Peformnt~ee~ 19, 466-4118. Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. "T ((1Cd94). Visual laical access is initially phonological: Evidence from associative priming tzrords, homophones, and pseudohomophones. Journal of ExpeP-itrrental Psyc/zsEogy, 3 23,107-1 28. Lundberg, I. (1985). Longitudinal studies of reading and reading difficulties in Sweden. Readirtg ResearcJ~:Ad~~ances ill Theory nnd Pmct ice, $,&S--106. Lundberg, I., Olokson, A., Wall, S. (1988). Reading and spelXing skills in the first schoml years predicted from phonemic atzrareness skills in kindergarten. Scandz'naz~lintzfourvlnl c$Psycltalogy~21,159-1 73, Mann, V. A, (1985).A cross-linguistic perspective on the relation between temporary skiXIs and early reading ability. Revzedial and Sr?ecial Edticafion, C;, 37-42. Martin, N . G., & Martin, P. G, (1975). The iAeritance of scholastic abilities in a sample of Wins. Annnls ojF-lzlrrmn Genetics, 39,229-228. Mattingly I. G. (1985). Did orthographies evolve? Special Issue: Phonology and the prc~blemsof learning to read and write. RASE: Remedial afrd Speelal Education, 6, 18-23. Melsltcm, D. A, (1991). Pattern fc>rmationduring animal development, Scietzw, 252, 23-241 . Morgan, VV: P. (1896).A case of congenital tzrord-blindness, British Medical lounzral, 2 3 , 1378, Qlson, R, K. (in press), Genes, environment, and reading disabilities. In R, J, Sternberg & L. tripear-Sweriing (Eds,), Xaerspective ou Iearni~lgdisabilities. BouIder, CO: Weshriew Press. Olson, R. K., Mliegf, R., Davidson, B, J,, & Foltz, G. (1985). Individual and developmental differences in reading disability Rendir-zgResearclz: Adz7tlnces ir-z Theoy alzd Prtzctice, 4 , 1 4 4 . Olson, R., Wise, B., Conners, F., Rack, J., & Fulker, D. (1989). Specific deficib in component reading and language skills: Genetic and environmental influences. fmat mnl c?f knnzz'ng Disabilities, 22,339-348. Qrton, S. T. ((1928).Specific reading disability-strephosymboIia. jazrnznt of the A nzerican Medical Associ~tion,90, 10%-1m9. Paap, K. R., McDonald, J. E., khvanevetdt, R. W., & Noel, R. W (198'7).Frequency and pronounceability in visually presented naming and lexical decision tasks, In M. CoXtheard (Ed.), Altc~nl.ionand pe~orn.mnceXIT: Tjze psyctzufogy of reading (pp. 221-243). Hillsdale, N J : Erlbaum. Paap, K. R., & Noel, R. W. (19%). Dual-route models of print to sound: Still a good horse race, Psycliologicnl Research, 53,13-24. Parkin, A. J., 8a; West, S, (1985), Effects of spelling-to-sound regularity on word identification fc>llawingbrief presentation in the right or left visual field. Nettr.apsyclzoEogy,23,315-341.

Pauls, D. L., Naylor, C., & Flowers, L, (19%). Rdzklt and secarzd gerterntiotz dyslexia. Unpublished manuscr-ipt. Pennington, B. F. (1991). Annotation: The genetics of dyslexia. Juurnal c;rSCllild Psychology and Psyehiat~-y,33,19%201. Pennington, B. F., Giiiger, L. W., PauXs, D., Smith, S. A., Smith, S., & DeFries, J. C. (1994). Evidence for a major gene transmission of developmental dyslexia. Journal of Clze Arrzericnn Medimf Associ~iil;on,266,1527-1 534. Pennington, B. F., Smith S. D,, Kimberling, W. I,, Green, P! A., &r P-iaith, M, M, (1987). Left handedness and immune disorders in familial dyslexia. Arcfzives oj Mcurobgy, 44,634-639, Perfetti, C , A. (1984). Reading ability. London and New tlork: Oxford University Press. Perfetti, C. A., CZr Bell, L. C. (1991). Phonemic activation during the first 40 ms of word identification: Evidence Emm backward masking and priming. Juurnal of Memory and La~gzrage,30,473485. Petersen, S. E., Fox, P. T., Posner, M. I., Mintun, M., & Raichle, M. E. (1989). Positron emission tomclgraphic studies of the processing of single tvords. lourlzal of Cognitiw Ne~iroscr'ence,3, 15S170. Petersen, S. E,, Fox, P. l'., Snydel; A. Z,, &r: Raichle, M, E, (1990), Activation of extrastriate and frontal cortical areas by visual words and word-like stimuli, Seience, 2149,1041-1 044. Petrill, S, A,, & Tihompsrrm, L. A. (1994).The effect of gender upon heritability and common envircjnmental estimates in measures of scholastic achiek~ernent.Per16, 6631440, sonality alzd Individual G)@ere~~ce~, Pinker, S (1995). The Inngzt~geinslizct.. New Ycfrk, NV:Harper Perennial. Preston, M. S., Guthrie, J. T,, Kirsch, I., Gertman, D., & Childs, B. (1977). VERs in normal and disabled adult readers. Psyclzopl.rys-ioEogy,34,8-44. Pricep, L., John, E, R,, &n, H., & Kaye, H, (1983). Neurc~metrics:Quantitative evaluation of brain dysfunction in children. In M. Rutter (Ed.), De.tlelo~~mentaZ n~uropsyclziafty.London: GuiXfc2rd. Pugh, K. R,, Shaywitz, B, A., Constable, R. T., Shaywitz, S. A., Skudlarski, I,., Fulbright, R. K., Bronen, R. A., Shankweliler; D. P,, Katz, L., Ftetcher, J. M., Br, Gore, 5. C. (1996). Cerebral organization of compc~nentprocesses in reading. B r ~ i n , 119,1221-1238. Pugh, K, R,, Shaywitz, B. A,, Shaywitz, S, E,, Shankweiler, D. P",, Katz, L,, Fletchel; J. M., Skudlarski, I?., F-trfbright, 13. K., Constable, R, T., Bronen, R, A., Lacadie, C., Core, I, C. (l%?). Predicting reading performance from neuroimaging profiles: The cerebral basis of phonological effects in printed WO& identification. Jozrrf~nlc$ Expeuirnenlnf Psycltology: Flzd~?tnnI""rrceptio-orzand Pe$ortn~nce, 23, 299-318. Puwes, P). (1988). Body and braizz. A ktwphic I"r"zeo1yof rzeuraf con~eclions.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rabin, M., Wen, X. L., Hepburn, M., & Ltubs, H. A. (1993). Suggestive linkage of developmental dyslexia to chromasame 1~34-36.Lancet, 342,178-3179, Rakic, I,. (1988). Defects of neurvnal migration and the pathagenes& of cortical malformations. Pragras in Bmin Research, 7;3,15-37.

Kamaa, S., Miles, T, K,, & Lalithamma, M, S, (191)3). Dyslexia: Symbol processing difficulty in the Kannada language. Readitzg and Writirzg: An Interdr'sciplz'tzary Journal, 5,2941. Read, C,, Zlhrang, tl., Nie, H,, CZr Bing, B, (1986). The ability to manipulate speech sounds depends on knowing alphabetic reading. Cognition, 24,31-44. Kichardsan, 5. 0. (1992). Historical perspectives an dyslexia. jarar~zral of Learning Disabilities, 25, 40--47. Koush, W. (4996). The supple synapse: An affair that remembers. Scietzce, 274, 1102-3103. Kazin, P,, Pctritsky, S., & Scltsky, R (1974). American children with reading problems can easily learn to read English represented in Chinese characters. Science, 171,2;?(14-1267. Rurnsey, j. M. (1992). The bialogy af developmental dyslexia, jclur~zalof the American Medial Association, 49,9912-9915.. Kumsey, J. M,, Andreason, I?, Zametkcin, A. J., Aquina, X, King, A. C,, P-iambergel; S. D., Xfikus, A., Rapopc,E"c, J. L., &s: Gohen, R. M. (3992). Faijure to activate the lef t tempc~rc~parietal cortex in dyslexia, tqrchit?esof r\ieztrulogy<49, 527-534. Rumsey, J. Met Berman, M. F*,Benckla, M. B., f-lambergeu; S. B., Bruesi, J. .T., Weinberger, D, R, (1987). Regional cerebral blood flow in severe developmental of Ne~roIogy~ 44, l 144-11 50, dyslaia. ArcItiz1~1~ Sagar; S. M., (4r Sharp, F. R. (1993). Early response genes as markers of neuronal activity and growth factor action. Advances itz Neurology! 59,273-284. Schuster; C. M., Davis, G. W., F;&ter, R. D., & Gcmdman, C. S. (1996a). Genetic dissection of structural and functional cumpc~nentsaf synaptic plasticity. 1, Fasciclin 11 controls synaptic stabilizaltion and growth. Nczkron, 17,641454. Schuster, C. M., Davis, G. W., Fetter, R D., & Goodman, C. 5. (1996b). Genetic dissection of structural and functional components of synaptic plasticity. 11..Fasciclin I1 contrr~lspresynapltic structural plasticity. Nezirun, 17, 655667. Schweiger, A., Zaidel, E., Field, T., & Dabkin, B, (1989). Right hemisphere cantribution to lexicajt access in an aphasic with deep dyslexia. Brairz nlzd linngulirge, 37,73439. Shashikant, C . S., Utset, M. E, Violette, S. M., Wise, T. L., Einat, P., Einat, M., Pendleton, J. W., Schughart, K,, & Ruddle, F. H. (1991). E-lorneobux genes in mouse development. Ezlhryolk Gene Expression, 4,207-245. Shaywik, B. A,, Pugh, K. K,, Constable, ft. T,, Shaywitz, S. E,, Brcmen, R, A., Fulbright, R. K,, Shankweiler, D. I?, Katz, L., Fletcher, J. M,, Skudlarski, I?, & Gore, J. C. (195), Localization of semantic processing using functional mapetic r s onance irnaging. Hunznn B r ~ i nMlirypi~tg,2, 10-20. Smith, S. D. (1992). Identification of genetic influences, Clinics ir-z co~ztmz-lnicatl'o disoders, 2, 7S85, Smith, S. D., Kfmberting, W J., Pennlngton, B. F., & lEJubs,FT. A. (1983). Specific reading disability: 1dentifcation af an inherited form through linkage analysis, Science, 2 19,1345-1 347. Smith, S. D., Penningtan, B. F., Kjimberling, VV: J,, & Ing, P. 5. (1990). Familial dyslexia: Use of pnetic linkage data ta defke subtypes. Jour~zalI?( the Amerimn 29,33&348. Academy of-Cfzildalzd Adofes~"lvrtfPsyclziat~y~

Spear-Swerling, L, C,, & Sternberg, K,5, (1996). Oflfmck: WIten poor readers became "lenmirzy:disabled," Boulder, CC): TRrestview Press. Stanovich, K. E-. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Jo~trnaIqf bamittg Diabl'lities, 21, 59M04. Stevensctn, H . W., tucker, C. W., tee, S.,Stigler, I, W., Kitamura, S., &r Hsu, C. C. (198'7). Poor readers in three cultures. In C. Super (4r S. Harkness (Eds.), Tlze role of clllfure itz devctvpfnetztral disorder, Vol. 4 (pp. 153-1 77).New York: Academic 13ress. Stevensctn, H. W., Stiglel; J, W., Lucker, C, W., Lee, S., Hsu, C., & Kitarnura, S, (1982). Reading disabilities: The case of Chinese' Japanese, and English. Child Developmenl, 53,3164-1 181. Stevenson, J., Graharn, I?, Fredman, G,, CZr Mcloughlin, V. (1987). A twin study of genetic influences on reading and spelling ability and. disability jozarnnl ($Child PycI~otvgyand Pqctzinfqt 28,229-2137. Sutdiff, j.G. (1%88). mRNA in the mammalian centrat nervous system. Annurnl Revielrzrr ufhre~croscience21, 457-498. Symmes, J, S,, & Rapoport, J. L. (1972). Unexpected reading failure, Americaz foz-lrnnl of Orftzopsychialy, 42,8294. Tallal, P., 8r Piertry, M. (1973). Defects of non-verbal auditory perception in children with developmental aphasia. Nal.ul.e, 2 1 , 4 6 H 6 9 . Tarnogol, L., & Tamopol, M. (1981). Comparative reading n ~ learlzi~lg d dtfieulties, texington: l ~ x i n g t o nBc>clks. Taylor, I, (1981), Writing systems and reading. In C. McKinnon &r X G. Waller (Eds.), Readif% refcmrch: Adv~necsia Ct~e
behavioral problems of children in a child psychiatric clinic]. Tijdschrqt voor Psyc;lll;nfrie,36, 195208. Wimmer; H. (1993). Characteristics of developmentaI dyslexia in a regular writing system. Applr'cld Bsyclzolirrgur'sCI'csI24, 1-33. Wimmer; H. (l9961, The nonword reading deficit in developmenta~dyslexia: Evidence from children learning tcr read German, Jozirrzalof Enrperi~tzerttnIChild Psychology, 62,80-90. Wimmer; E-€,, Landerl, K., Linortner, K,,&r Hummer, P. (1994). The relationship of phonemic awareness to reading acquisition: More conxquence than precondition, but still important. Cr2gtzilion, 40,219-243. Wood, E, Felton, R,, Flowers, L., & Naylar, C. (1992). Neurobehavimal definition of dyslexia. In D. D. Duane & L). B. Gray (Eds.), The rlradir?gbrtzz'r-1:The biological basis ofdysskrxh (pp. 1-26). Parkton, MD: Uark Press. Wood, F". B., Flowers, D. L., Buchsbaurn, M., & Talfal, P. (1991). Investigation of abnormal left temparal functioning in dyslexia through rCBFI auditory evoked potentials, and po~sitronemission tomography Rending nlzd Wrilz'tzg:An Inletdisciplitzay journal, 4, 84-95. WoXff, I? H., &: MelngaiXis, X. (2994). Family patterns of developmental dyslexia. America~zlourrlal of ltlcdical Genlrtics (hieztrupsyclzi~ztric Getzetics),54,122-434, Wright, S, F,, & Groneu; R, (1992). Zur Frage der Definition und Abgrensung von tesestorungen [Dyslexia: Issues of definition and subtyping]. Sclzzur7izeriscile Zeitschrft fiir Psyclzolog;ie, 51, 15-25. Zajdel, E., & Peters, A. M. (1983). Phonological encoding and iciecJgraphicreading by the discmnected-right hemisphere: Two case studies. Brain a d tnngu~ge, 14, 205-234. Zawitska, J. B., &r Wawrocka, M. (19%). Chick retina and pineal gland differentially respond to contitant light and darkness: In vivo studies on serotonin Nacetyltransferase (MAT) activity and rnelatonin content. Neuroscie~zeeLetters, 253,21-24, Zerbin-Rudin, E. (1967). Congenital word-blindne ss... Bzrflefizzcf the Orton SocieE-y, 2 7,47-54

The Neuropsychological Basis of

Learning Disabilities Geovge W. Hynd

A~r;tandaB. CZinton Iennifer R. Hiemenz

teaming disabilities are most appropriately viewed from a neuropsychcr logical perspective..This perspective is consieent with the t.listory of over a century of clixlical and.experirnmtd reports and with accepted, definitions of learning disabilities, which typically tie these disabilities to central nervous system dysfuxzction (Harris & Hodges, 1981; Hynd, Haoper, & Takahashi, h press). It is believed that the behavjord charactcristicls we associate with learnhg disabilities arise from abnsrmaliities or variance in the development of important brain structures and associated connections among neurons in, the cerebral cortex, which most likely arise between the fifth and seventh monlth of fetal gestation (Galaburda, 1993; Hynd & Semrud-Clikeman, 2"389), This chapter addresses the conceptuallzation of llcarnjng disabilities, particutarly in the area of rczading, as arising from neurological deficits,. This conceptudizatio~zis based on studies of documented variability in the brahs of individuals diagnosed, with luaming disabilities in reading, The focus herein is based on a long history of inviry into this specific learning djsabilit,y. U'nfortunate:Ly,considerably less is b o w n about other learning disabilities such as in written language or mathematics. Various methods of investigation have been used in examining these anatomicat anornalics, incltrdhng postmortem prclcedures, neuroimaging

This researell was supported in part by a grant (ROI-HD26890-03)awaded to t11e first aud~orfrom t11e National institute of Child Health and Human Bevetopxnent (NICHHD), National Institute
Neuropsycl~olag1'calBasis cf Lcnmizzg Disabilities

61

techniques, and functional neuroimaging techniques. Investigaticm of these anomlies yields invaluable information regarding differcr.~cesin brain morphology behnJem individuals with readin.g disabilities, for example, and nondisabled inciiwiduals, But it is impcntant to first understand when and how abnormalities might occur during neurolngical development. Thus we first examine the normal process of brain mtogeny and associated variability in the brains of hdividuals with reading disf-abilities, the most common of all learning disabilities..Thenf we co~~sider definitional and diagnostic issues and procedures and associatctd principles ~ l e v a nto t effective remediation. Finally, W briefly ct,mmmt on the neuropvychologi"al perspective as it relafxs to oIhers noted in Ihe Eterature.

Normal Brain DeveZopment:and Variation Associated with Learning Disabilities In the eariiest stages of human prenatal development, the neural tube is formed by l.he process of meurulation, in wltich the hoiifow sphere of rapidly dividing cells, called the gastmla, develops an indentation that continues to extend into the interior cJf the bail of cells, creathg a twowalled ball. The inner layer of cells forms the founda.t.ion for the neural tube, which constitutes the cellular basis of the central nervous system and develops into fie brain and spinal cmd. The neurat tube is gmeralfy developed and closed by the sjxth we& of fetal gestation. At first, the brain" surface is smooth and lacks fissures (stllci) and folds (gyri). At approximately 14 weeks, the longitudhal fissure, M;hich divides the brain into two cerdral hemispheres, and the Syl.vian fissure, dkiding the pasietal and frontal lobes from the temporal lobe, are visible. At 36 weeks, tke parietooccipitd sulcus appears, dividing the parietal .from the occipitd lobes. Finally, at about 20 weeks of gestation, the central sulcus becomes visible, dividing the frontal lobes from the parictd lobes fl)c,oting, Chi, & G.illes, 1983; Chi, Ur>oZir^lg,& Gifles, l W a , b). Between the 24th and 26th weeks, the brain undergoes a rapid increase in wei.ght, faflowed by a spurt in gyrification (foldhg) between the 26th and 28th week of gestation that follows an orderly progrrssictn ( D o ~ l h g et al., 1983, Mynd Rr Wii,lis, 19K8). Figure 3.1 shows the rniljor landmrks of the brain. Orighally, gyri in the cortex were tbought to be formed by a passive, mechanical folding process as the brain expanded in size within the confines of the skull, thus allowkg for more surface area to fit within an enclosed space (Welker, 1990). However, recent research has demonstrated

CENTRAL S-UCGW ZfthisURE OF R O L I W !

t

FXGUIXE 3.2 Brain

A Representation of the Major Landmarks in the Human

that the gyrification process reflects the formation of cortical connections during the migration and lievelopment of neurons to the cortex. Neurons are originaIXy fnrmed in an area called the germinal matrix, near the fluid-faled cavities (lateral ventricles) of the brah. &ce formed, a neuron migrates frorn the germinat matrix to the outer part of the brain, callcd the cortex. The arriving netlrans migrate in waves to form layers, hrmQ the deepest layer (Vf) first and.the most superficial.layer (11) last, so that t h y are eventually a r m g e d fn c d u S. Layer I contaiz~sno neumm; it: is rekrred to as the d e c d a r or cell-free layer. Once the neu,rons are arranged in co%ums,they then begin to form connections with other neurons Fn various areas of the cortex, As connections form, the cortex itsell becomes folded, producing the gyri and sulci that are seen in the normal hurman brain, Figure 3 2 shows a magnetic resonance imagirtg (MM) scan of a brain fn which the gyri and srtlci are clearly visibte. Athough gysi and szxlcj. develop in an orderly progression that is the same across hdividuals, same variation does occur among individuals in the exact pattern of gyri and sulci. Because gyral patterns vary a great deai, it is necessary to determine a "normal range" of vctriance in order to identify patterns that can be classified, as abrromal. n e s e variations h the gyr"3 pattern must come about between the fifth and seventh month of ktal gestatim, since it is durkg this time that- the gyral pattern is determined. Since the gyrd pattern is a visjble indicator of an indjVidualfs patterns of intracortical connection, it follows that variations that are out-

Neuropsycl~olag1'calBasis cf Lcnmizzg Disabilities

63

FIGURE 3.2. A Magnetic 8eso)nance Image (MRI) Scan of a Chifd's Brain in Which the Gyri and Major Fissures Can Be Seen

side the normal range of varimce should be associated with deviations in cortical comedians. 'These deviations should then, in turn, reflect same type of cowitive or behavioral deficjt, depending upun the locaticm oi the abnormality For example, abnomal gyrd patterns in the left-central language zones may be associated with deficits i,n fumlions related to that area, such as language and readjng, Thus these deficits in language and reading must also necessarily be asswiated with abnormal gyral developmnt. between the fifth and seventh month oE gest&ion. Rlomal PattPms B f Sz-llcilGyri in the Ccrebval OrtenBefore the 19605, very little information was available regardhg normal variatims in srtici and gyri in the cerebral cortex. Early sh;ldies presenkd evidence of normal left.-siglht:aspmmetries of the Sylvian fissure; thc right Sylvim fissure was shorter and was angled sharply upwad cormpared to the left Syl\lian fksurr. (ConnollyI 1951); Rubens, Mahowald, clIr Hutton, 1926). In 1968, hawever, Geschwhd and Levitsky ptt-blished their seminal study documnting neuroanatomical asymmetry in a postmortem investigation of 100 a d d brains. 'This study reported that 65 percent of the

FIGUM 3.3, A Sagittal MKl %ction of the Brain Showing the Tc>pographyof the Pt anum Tmporale Buried Within the Sylvian Fissure The tip of arrow 1points to the anterior border of the ternpc~ralbank of the planum temporale; arrow 2 points to the tesmination of the temparal bank of the planum temporale. The tip of arrow- 3 points tc-,the superior termination of the planurn parietal. Reprinted with permission from f ancke et al., 1994.

brains in their sample had a left-greater-thm-right asymmetry of the region called the planurn temporale, which is composed of the superior srtrface of the temporal lobe in the posterior portion of the Syl\iian hsurt. (see Figure 3.3). Shce this perce~~tage correspo~~ded well to ideas on the functional importance of right-handedness and lmguage lateralizatim, they concluded that tbis a s y m e t r y must be lhked to both right-handedness and lmgmge laterillization. This finding was supported by earlier case studies by Broca, Wtmicke, and others that linked language fmctisns to this area (Witelson, 1982). The importance ol this fhding by Cesehwind and Levitsky (1968) has been underscored by many studies that followed their =port. For example, a recent study by Founctas and her colleagues exalnilled the rczlationship between this leftward a s p m e t r y oE the plmum temporale region as visualized on MRZ scans and language lateralizatim Eleven subjects with language known to be hteralized in the left hedsphert? all had a l q e r left thm right planurn temporaie. C)ne subject with language Lateralized to the right hemisphere had. a larger right than left planum temporale a d was left-handed (Foundas, Leonard, Gihore, Fennell, & Heilman, 1994). The idea that planum temporale asymmetry may be linked to language lateraiization inevithly led to studies investigathg the possible

Neuropsycl~olag1'calBasis cf Lcnmizzg Disabilities

65

~lationshipbetween versed or mfxed asymmetry of the planum temporale region and language and reading disorders (Hynd 8s Cahezz, 1983; Witelson, 1982). Current studies of this relationship have primarily used measurements made from MM scans to document the degree of asymmetry fomd in this region, but. some recent studies have also utilized functional magnetic resonmce imaging (EMRI) to investigate which areas of the brain art? activated during lanwage and reading tasks. MRI Studies of Sulcal/Gy ral Pa Hems in D plexia More recent studies ol the asyrnmetry of the planurn temporale using MM have presented evidence that reading didilities may not be due to a reversed asymmetry of the planum temporale but rather W e d to symmetrical plana, with the right planurn, being longer than in normal individuaXs (Larsen et al., 1990).However, Hynd and colleagues (1990)attributed the symmetry found in their ~ading-disabledsarnple to a smai1r;r left planurn rathcr than a larger right planurn.. Because of thcse conflicth g resdts, other studies have examined both the texnporal banks (planum temporale) and the parietal hanks (prlanum parietale) of the planum in order to determine if differernes i,n symxne&y of these banks were rcllated to reading d.isabilities O.,eonard et al., 1993). This approach war; themetically important because vvhereas the tempmal bank is thought to be critically invotved in lhguistic processing, the parietal bank is believed to be vital to nmveibal or visuospatial processing. This and otht-rr studies exmining the ternpcrral and parietal banks of the planurn indicate that no significant differe~~ces in the asymmetry of the total plana are displayed between groups of reading-disabled and nmdisabled individuais but that left planum temporale lengtl?l,and thus La > R asymmetry; itself tends to be positively related to language scores for nondyslexic indkiduals and that right planterrrporale lcngth is negatively related to language measures Eor il~dividualswith reading disabilities (Morgan, Hyxrd, Hall, Novey; Eliogulos, 8s Riccio, 1996). Syecificalfy for individuals with reading disabilities, having a longer right planum tmporak tends to be associated with lower language abiliEy. For ilzdi,viduais without readling disabilities, having a longer left planum temporak tends to be associated with higher language ability I'heefore, levels of exprttssive and receptive language ability as well as m e a s m s of reading ability most frequently corselated with measurements of the planum temporale as seen on M m scans. In particular, the leftward asyrnmetry of the temporal bank of the planum temporale is linked to higher levels of lirrguistic and reading abiXjty. It is important that this relationship between asymmetry of the plmum temporale and language and readhg ability seems to be gemralized to

Achievement c85 SS,

Achievement 385 SS

FIGURE 3.4. The Relatiomhip Between the Diredim of Asymmetry of the Flanurn Temporate and Receptive Language Abilities As Measured on the Ctinieal Evaluation of Language Ftmction~Reviwd(CELF-K) Test It can be seen that when performance is below average (standard score .e 85), significantly fewer children have t > R asymmeti-y of the planurn temporale.

the populaticm in generai; below-average language and reading scorns (c 85 standard score) are associ.ated with less asymmetry ol the planum temporale than in those with average or better language and reading abilities, For example, frctm our st-udies at the University of Georgia (Figures 3.4 and 3.5) it can be seen that when plma asymmetry is examined in children wfiose receptive language and passage readirlg camprehensitrn scores are classified as below average (c85 standard score), normal La r R plana asymmetry occurs in only 20 percelzt and 24 percent af the chitdren, respectively. When plana asymmetry is examined in children who achieve scorns in the normaf or above-normai range of performance f< 85 standard scorc) on a measure of receptjve langllage and passage reading camprehension, phna asyrnmtry shifts to 59 percent and. 58 percent, rczspectkely (Morgan et d.,1996). 'Thus there seems to be some competling szlpport for the conclusion that L, R asymmetry in this region of the central language zme is positively related to receptive language and passat;e reading cclmprehmsion abilities. Although measure~~ents af p l a ~ u mtemporale asymmetries made using MRZ tcchology have shown same promise in clarifying our view of the neural bases of language and learnhg disorders, particularly in reading, this approach is lhited in that it exantines only a small area of Ihe temporale itself, while igclassical language cortex, that of the plannoring surrounding arc.as that may also be related to language functions.

Neuropsycl~olag1'calBasis cf Lcnmizzg Disabilities

Achievement c85 SS

Achievement >85 SS

FIGUM 3.5, The Relationship Between the Direction of A5yrnmeti-y of the Planurn Temporale and Passage Reading Comprehension Erc)rn the Wrtodco>ck Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRiMT-R) It can be seen that when performance is below average ((sandard score .tl85), significantly fewer children have t > R asymmetry of the planum temporale.

Because of this Emitation, recent =search has begun to examine variations in overall patterns of sulci and gyri in the area surrounding the Sytvian fissure in an attempt to discern whether these variations impact language or learning ability (Ilynd & Hiemem, 1987). Since the sulcal patterns themselves are a visible indicator of cellular cortical connections, vanations or disturbances of these patterns may reflect Labnormal cortical connections that may in turn influence behavior, depending al upon the cortical location. Although most hdividuals have s ~ ~ l cpatterns that vary from others+pattems somewhat, h the mamer of fingerprints, commonalities exist in the arrangements of major sulci and gyri in the cortex. It would be possiblt to quantitatively classify every area of the cerebral cortex by patterns of sulci and gyri, but so far classificath systems have been Ijmited to the rt;gion surrounding the Sy-lvim fissure, which is of note because of its invohemnt in language h x t i o n s asscxjated with the classical Wemicke" region. To date, two classification systems have been developed for the sulcal/gyral patterns of this ~ g i o n , etz and his colleagues (1990) and that of Witelson and Kitz and colleagues (1990) classificatian system examines the physical relationship betwecn the Syvian fissure and other major s~dci surrounding it, including the central sulcus and the postcentral sulcus. Variations in the placement and physical characteristics of these sulci

have been classified into four distinct subtypes, which Steinmetz and cdl e a g ~ ~hypothesize es to be related to variations in. language ability. To date, howwer, only one published study has applied this classifiratim system using MM fn i n b i d u a l s with and d t h o u t severe reaeiing disabilities, or dyslexia. Leonasd and her colleagues (1993) found evidence of greater incidences of Type I morphology in the left hemispheres of individuals without dyslexia, as wetl as a higher rate of Type 3 morpholngy in the l& hcntispheres of dydexics. However; this study is ljmited in that the number of suhjects in each group was small (10 per group) and dysiexic subjects wert? diaposed solely on historical scrlf-report, that is, whether they rcmembe~dhaving difficdy in reading as a child. Wtekon and Kigar" ((1992) method of classification examines only the physical characteristics of the Syt\iian fissure itself rather than its relation yields ~ three dcscripli"" types of to surroumding structures. Their s y s t e ~ Sylvim fissures that may also show some relationship to language abilities. Whereas the Steinmetz and colleaglxes (1990) system examines a grater area of stmctures, tche Witelson and Egar system is m c h more analogous to the earlier studjes examjning asymetries of the parietal and t a p o r a l banks of the ptanum tempmale, which ccnrespond to the vertical and horizontar asyects, rclspectively, of the Sylvian fissure? itself. Although this system of classification holds much promise, no prrbfished studies have yet examined the relationship cJf Sylvian fissure mory>hology fas classified in this system) to language or reading disabilities.

FanetionaE MRI: Studies of (eTel.ebraE Aclivuliora i3t R e n d i ~ gDisdhiliies Although MM and posmortem studies have pmvided a great deal of insight into variations in brain morpholiogy in reading disabilities, they have not yet provided a clear solution to the mystery of language function localizaticm trYithin the cerebral cortex. The best of these studies presents d y correlative evidcnce in szxpport oE langllage lateralizatim hypotheses. However, recent studies utilizing hnctional irnaging technipes, such as positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imagiing (Mm),are beginning to provide s m e support for existing hypotheses concerxling the language lunctions of the area surrounding the Sylvian fissm. SpecificaIly, functional imaging studes of the left cortex in this area have shown activation during tasks hvohing listening to nonword phonemes and words (Demonet et al., 3994; Binder et al., 1994; Millen et al., 19%). Conversely, tasks invoking comprehending metaphors and other nonliteral aspects of speech p i marily led to right hemisphere activation in this region (Bottini et aX., 3994). Although these studies do indicate that these areas of the brain are

Neuropsycl~olag1'calBasis cf Lcnmizzg Disabilities

69

important in language comprehension, this is a rapidly growhg area of research and we have only begun to scratch the surface. In particular, mort. functional imaging studies need to be done exmining activation of these language areas in individuals with and without leaming disabilities. It should be clear that research conducted in the past several decades has sipificantly altered our perceptions that learning disabilities arc. due to some sort of "mhimal brain damage" (MKU) tokvard a conceptualization that incorporates factors affecting the norrnd process of fetal brain mtogeny. Some evidence suggests that Ehe variation we see in the brains of hdividnats with learnhg disabilities, particularly those with reading disabilitier;,is under genetic influencers (Smit..h,Pennington, Emberling, & Xng, 1990),but them still exists an appreciation for other factors, including environmental, that mt?y afSect the normal scope and sequence of brain deveXopment in persons with learning disabjlities, Wth these tkoughts in mind, it is now appropriate to h;lm our attention tokvard definitiomal and diatgnostic issues and their impfjcations for treatment of lemixrg disabjlities. .As will be seen, these am many different pempectives and issues related to diagnostic a p p m a " h e ~ n dtheir impfications for intervention. It is not our internti.on to discuss the specifics related to what tests or &agnostic procedures shvuld or should not he administered. Rather, we discuss the broader conceptmnd issws germme to each approach and the neuropsychologicat approach as possibty the most inclusive perspective for understanding, diagnosing, and treatkg learning disabilities.

Defining, Diagnosing, and Treating Learning Disabilities Despite a century-long awareness of the existence of learniing disabilities, clinicians currentXy lack consensus regarding the most accurate and meaninghl measlrres or methods fctr diagnosing and treating rt.adU.~g, writing, and nnathennatical handicaps. Although federal law nnandates that a discrepancy between a child's Lntellectual capabjlities and his or her s c h o l achievement must result in a diat;nosis of lea many ehcators and researchers prefer the information provided by atternative methods such as curriculum-based measurement (Dino, 1985) and clynmic assessment f Feuerstein, 1479).Additionally, =cent wsexch suggests a potential future role for the use of brain irnalJing techniques such as MRI, MRI, or PET h th diagnosis of disabilities (Hynd et al., 3990; Rumsey 1992) in reading, writing, and math. The diagnostic process is further complicated by issues s~~rrounding the effect of socioeconomic status, ethnic backgroul-td, and culturaj orientation on a dild's test performance and subsequent placement in special

instructional classes. Comofbidity or the simultaneous existmce of two or more disabling conditiorrs, creates additionat challer~gesto accurate diagnostics. This is especiaXly a concern because of the relatively high rates of comorbidity between learning disabilities and Attcntim Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Hynd, Morgan, Edmonds, Black, Riccio, & Lombardino, 1995). TradiZ-ia~zat Diapostic Methods:

The D&C~(JPRIECY Model The implementation of uniiform diagnostic procedures for learning disabilities evolved as a result of a U.S. Office of Education (TJSOE) defhition of specific leanling disability that focused on the presence of achievement deficits despite average learning potential (Francis, 7,996). Federal legislation in th form of PL 94-142, the Education for 8 1 1Handicapped ChItdrm Act, in 1975, and fie llldividuals with Uisabilities Education Act (IDEA), most recerztly revised in 7,996, further e~~cauraged the development of this procms, termed the discrepancy model. IDEA, a revision of Pt 94-142, ensures a "free appropriate pubtic education within the least restsidive envi ent for children with disabilities.'Yn order for inditridual states to receive federal funding support for implementation of these federally mandated special education services, however, "nondiscrin?tinator)i evaluat-ion pmcedtares for idmtif cation and placement" must be utilized. IDEA also includes key provisions requiring that all tests be linked to the child's ggeneral curriculum and fiat assessment p r o c e d u ~ sprovide informdion that directly contributes to the desig~n and impkmentation of relevant instructional strategies for the child. These aforementioned identification and placement procedures utilized in public schools and private-practice settings revolve around IQ testing in 46 of the 50 states. The diagnostic process for a child referrcd due to difficdty learning to read, write, or calculate math typically imeludes an analysis of the difference between a eM&s intellectual potentid for his or her age, as measured by an individual standardized IQ measure, and performance m an achievement test, which is a standardized assessment of academic performance. 'The most commonly used batteries are the Weschler Individual Scales for Children-Revised (WlSC El-R; WescHer, 197'4)and fie Woodcock-Johnstm Psychcreducationd Battery-Revised (WFR; Woodcock &- Johnson, t989), although many, many others exist, Criterion for the classification of learning disabled varies according to state law, but a difference of 15 to 211 points between the a d ' s IQ and level of academic functioning on a basic reading skill, reading cmprehension, math calculation, or writhg subtest generally meets the criterion fnr a cfiagnosis of a specific learning disability (SLD).

Neuropsycl~olag1'calBasis cf Lcnmizzg Disabilities

71

Chidrm whose intellectuai votient and achievement arc. adequately discrepant do not typicab quaify for support services if their reading, writhg, or math arc within the average range, however. Tn other words, a r potenchild with an above-average IQ who is not achieving to his c ~ her tial in school, as shown by acadelnic achievement scares that may be 15-20 standard score points fower than the irttellectual quotient, magi not ~ c e i v ae diagnosis of learnfng disabled. 'The discrepancy criterion is cmsidered diagnostic d y if a child's performance is below avcrage (gencrally defined as helow a standard score of 85 on a measure of achievement) as compared to a national sample of chjldren his or her age, not if academic progress is below his or her individual potential, Numerous concerns surround the use of the discrepancy m d e l to diagnose learning disabilities. It has been noted that clinicrians adminiskr IQ tests without considering the relevance to diagnostics on a case-bycase basis. Specifiral1.v;Reschfy and Grimes (1990) report the existence of "recognized limitations of intellectual assessment in developing educational p $ r a m s or olh,er interventions for students" and the "lost o p p r tmities for the dellvery of other, potentially morc effective services due to the time and energy devoted to irrtellectual assessmentf"p. 427). fn other wads, il a student is struggting to read, write, or calculate m&, the child" ppamnts and teachers are well aware of this without the diagnostic label provided by an IQ measure and an achievement test. A. larger issue regarding the discrepancy model questions the ~ralidity of IQ scores as to& for identification of learnirtg disabilities. Concerns center around ccrnceptual and empirical issues, both of which are addressed in detail by Francis m d his colleagues (1996). 'The notion that a child's cognitive capabilities, such as memory, attention, and learning, result directly from her intellectual quotient is ccmtrasted to the greater possibility that a child's IQ score results directly from the interaction of these cognitive capacities. One would logirally conclude, then, that the g-disabled chi2dfsperformance on an :IQ measure would be negatively intpacted by his or her clifficulty Empirically, Francis and colleagues express concems regarding the statistical constructs mdcrlying tests of IQ, They report that the discrepancy model fails to identify a l q e poplllatim of children who dn indeed sllffer from acadcrnic impairment yet are not r e c v i z e d due to insensitive statistical procedures.

Statistical and ccmcepbal imadequacies and a pertleived lack of practical applicabitity to treat~aentdesign of the kaditional model encouraged the development of a brcrader view of learning disabilities and,subsequent@ new approaches tcr diagrrosis. Mmy =searchers encourage a cmsidera-

tion of multipie developmentd cogllitive alld performance domains rather than conceptualizing a single index infwncing expected levels of achievement (Beminger & Abbott, 19%). From an assessment perspective, these may include curriculun-t-based measu~ment,dynamic assessment, and, more recently, nctrropsychological mthods, Although many advocate for the exclusive use of one or another or these perspectives on assessment a d diagnosis, it might be argued that thew varying approaches are not necessar.ily mutmlly exclusive. No~ncthcless,each weds to be considered individually. Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) focuses on direct measurement of a chjld's &ills in the subject area of concern. In, contrast to other approaches, CRM is based on the premise that a handicap occurs when a "discrepancy between what is expected of a student and what is actually occurring'keltists (Shinn#1,989,p. 92). The process elnphasizes assessment that is tied to the curriculum, is brief h duration so as to allow for hequmt progress monitoring. is prcrscmtabIe in multi* forms, and is sensitive to stude~ntprogress over time (Jtlarston, f %g). Uiag~nosisof a learning disability under the CBM rclbric focuses on identification of students" levels of performance as compared to peers im their school district. S c m s that fall two or more years below grade level or below the 16th percentile meet the criterion for special, education service. Advmtages of curriculum-based measmment are that it provides imformation prtaining to the appropriate materials for instruction of the rcferred skdent; provides samples of reading, writing, or math skills that may be readily tailored to the development of education& goals; and leads to a collection of samples of the types of errors comrnolnly made by the student. on the tasks utiljzed in his or her particular educational setting. These assessment outcomes successfutly meet the lettcr of the IDEA law, Similar to the discrepancy model, C-BM has limitations. As noted by Meltzer (1994), the developmental and cognitive status of the student is disregarcted in f ~ o ofr evaluaticm of inccmgntence between the performance of the referstld student and that student's peer group. CBM also fails to address the dynamic process of learning and does not tap into complex school tasks such as writing papers or completing projects,.Finally, dewlopment of a database of children's scores at tlne local level, which can be used comparativel:y when disposing a child as learning disabled, is a lengthy and complex p c e s s that lacks practicality for most educators. Further issues of si@ficant concern are the reliaibility of measurement on small samples of behavior, the match between the asses* ment measures and the frequently changing scope and sequence of curricdum materials, and the time reqztircjd to complete pl probes to measure academic gains.

Neuropsycl~olag1'calBasis cf Lcnmizzg Disabilities

73

A secmd popular alternative method for assessing l e a m i ~ ~djsabilig ties is referred to as dynamic assessment. The basis for this model is the assumption that a child's learning processes and response to instruction may be m e a s u ~ dusing a test-teach-test approach wherein the examiner embeds learning expmiences in the assessment. 'Thus a clynarnic assessment focuses not on a static test product such as an Z(12 score but on the student" aahility to profit academicdy in a teaching context. The goal is to identify the m o u n t of change m d e by a child in response? to teaebing by the examiner in d e r to design effective teaching strategies. X3yn m i c assessment provides information pertinent to the intensity of instruction required for docume~~ting academic progress in the child (Lidz, 2991). Dynamic-assessment advocates emphasize its function as a s o m e of inormation complementary to traditjnnal methods rather than as an independent means of diagnoshg a learning disability. SiJnilar to curriculum-based measurement, this method is parZicuTarly useful in that it addresses IDEAls requirement that diagi~asticprocedures be directly linked to intervention, It is particujarly time consuming, however, and therefore difficutt to impIement in the school setting with the traditbnatly high student-to-teacherratios. .A rapidly expanding area of hterest in llearnhg disability diagostics fnr children is that derived from neuropsychology. Consistcnt with the increasingly ixnpressive body of research linking variatim in brain development to learning disabilities, as noted previously, assessment of impairment from a neuropsychologicd perspective focuses on the rczlaticmship between, brain-behavjor relations and deficient cognitive, behavioral, and academic pmcesses. Neuropsychdogical procedures have been ~ f e r r e dto as the "most ccrmprehensive psychological evaluation avaiiablef"(KelLy & Dem, 1990, p. 491) due to the integration of cognitive, sensorimotor, academic, and emotiond aspects of behavior. U~~fortunately, neuropvy"hdogical assessment is rarely included in a stmdard psychaeducatio~~al evaluation. The reasons are twofold: First, most school-based psychologists do not possess the specialized, training ~ q u i r e dto conduct such an evaiuation, Second, the discrepancy model utilized in most cliagnosticr settings seeks no information pertaining to the underlying cause or origin of the disability This focus on etiology is of primary relevance in the neuropsychologicd evaluation, hokvever, as it is believed that it is importmt to disthguish between constitutional influences (e.g., genetic, neurologiral) and other, potentially relevant influences (e.g., social, envizo ens) that may be m m easily remediated. of ne.ctmpsycholsgicalassessxnent resdts, therefore, typImplement.atio~~ ically takes the form of a complement to traaitional metfiods wherein the

school psychologist acts as a consultant and liaison for professionds .from the educational and medical communities (Riccio & Hynd, 11995).

Diagnosing learning djsabilitks challengers educators m d psychologists not oniy because of the nature of wsessment practices but because of the mture of children as individuds who p a s s s s ntyriad uniquenessesMost salient to the diagnostic process is the presence of a coexisting but independent disorder, or comorbidity, and socioeclmomic, racial, and cultural,differe~~ces. Research suggcrsts high rates of coexistenre between learning disabilities and both externalizing and internalizing disorders. Fnr example, a notably s t r o ~ ~association g between ADHD and learnhg disabifities appears to exist (Sha.ywit.z& Shaywit;r,1.992;Semrud-Cl.ikemanet al., 19921, and increased rates of mild deprttssive disorcter have been found in those with lcarning disabilities (Fristad et al., 1992). Whereas most: of Che research addressixlg comosbidity utilizes samples of children currently receiving treatment for behavioral or emotional ar-rd learning difficulties, it is likely that many of the cMdren referred for special edwdion evaluation and subsequently diagnosed as learning disabled in the public school setting experience coexisting impairments. The presence of more than one disorder complicat.es the diagnostic process considerably. The issue of primacy of one disorcier over another may be particularly relevant in the school setting, where educational suppmt is ofternt.imes contingent upvn a specific diagn0sl.k category (e.g., placement md. treatment for learning disabilities or emotional disturbance, not both). Questions also arise regarding the rdationship hetween impairments. Consider comorbidity of a reading disability and ADHD: Et is possible that difficulties in ~ a d i n g classroom material may create a teneiency fnr children to become fidgetyr inattentive, and even impdsive in the sense that they gucss at answers to questions because it is imposible to read the information u p m which assig I-labitual inattention may then negativety affect reading achievment, whereupon the maladaptive behavhrs hcrease in frequency or severity. Although research currently does not support the view that learning disabitities cause ADHU (Hynd et al., 1.9951, this nation remains popular among parents, teachers, and some professionals.. It is interesting that a growing body of evidence suggests a possible future role fcrr neuropsychologicd differentiatim of the genetic basis of readixlg disabiljties and the fmilial psychopalhological basis ol ADHD (Hynd et al., 1.995; Hynd & Hicmnz, 1997). As these diagnostk techniques evoke, practitioners may be better able to differentiate one dis-

Neuropsycl~olag1'calBasis cf Lcnmizzg Disabilities

75

ability from another when a child suffers from c o r n d i d disorders. For example, Lombardino, Riccio, Mynd, and Piheim (7997) found Chat l h guistic deficits such as those referred to as phonological codjng deficits, which are in turn linked to variation in planum temporafe asymmetry (Msrrf;anet al,, 1,996),charackrize childrt3rz with reading disa,bility. In this regard, tests of linguistic and phonologicd processing known to be associated with a specific brain region may provide vduable information . from &out brain-bet-tavior lkkagcl-sin learning-disabled c h i l d ~ n'Thus this line of research, measures may be available to differentially diagnose c h i l d ~ nwhose reading or other lea g disabilities are indeed related to a neursdevelapmentally based disorder. .An additional diapostic challenge concems accurate identification of children from low socioeconomic or minority racial and cultural backgsounds. Surveys of proportionate numbers of Afriean h m i c a n , Hispanic, and Caucasian children e n d l e d in special education consistently report that smatler percentages of minorities than whites are identified as learning disabled (Tuekcr, 1,980).h many inne~cityschools, the m a n IQ does not equd Ihe national norn of 100 but instead hovers 10-15 points below the nationat werage at 90 or 85, Utilization of the discrepmcy model for diag~nosisof these populations as learning disabled requires shidtisrg the criterion for qualification to the left of the normal distribution or reducing it in order to avoid overidentifying these children as mentdly impaired. Although this solutim strives for fairness, it inadvertently crcates a situation wherein children with academic difficulties that would otherwise meet diagnostic criterion as learning disabled may not receive needed additional or appropriate hstructional support. Wnjque challenges also surround evaluation of children who speak English as a second language. Of parZicular cmcem for this population is assessment of reading and language disabi)ities. Diagnos:is of learning disabilities in bilingual chiidren is plag~ledby the use of inapproyriate tests based on theories that may lack relevmce to tbrse populations and inaccurate differe~ntiationbetween a disorder and language differences (jitendra & Rohena-Diaz, 1996).

Conclusions Despite vast progress in our understanding of the neuropsyehdogical basis of learning and the nature of learning disabilities, diag~nosticsand treatment remain in transition and phgued by controversy, Debate cmters Iargely around fie federally and state mmdated procedures that rely upon the discrepancy between a child's IQ and acadernic achievemnt-. Pmvisim of special education services for students stmggling to develop ~ a d i n gwriting, , or math skills =mains dependmt on meeting the 15-20

point criterion despite its yuestionahle vaiidity and practicality Curriculm-based assessment, dynamic assessment, and neuropsychological assessment represent h e r g e n t efforts a h e d at improving on the traditional diagnostic and treatment models. Although issues of comorbidity, socioeconamic status, and different racial and cultural backgrounds may continue to complicate the diagnosis of learning disabilities, it is possible that these approaches will eventually complement one other in a holistic assessme~~t process that draws an. the strengths af each. :New developments are sure to come, especially from those who believe that the symptoms we see in learning-disabled children and adutts reflect s o m basic, constitutional variability or dysfunclion in the central nervous system, as is presumed in the federal definition of learning disabilities, Perhapmmost pmmfsing in this regard is the work of Tallal and colleagues (1996), where evidence seems to indicate that children with language, and perhaps reading, disabilities suffer from deficits in perceiving tempmitt-orcler effects in speech. Based on her early =search, Tallal has developed a cmputer-based ktervention program that fadlitales a developing sensitivity to the temporal-order perception of speech stimuli. Atthou* she reports signifirmt gains in the acctrrate perception of temporal speech stimuli and gains academically; the results are still toa preliminary to draw conclusions as to the validiv of these notions, It is promising, however, that two independent researchers have validated psy cbophysiologicaily Che existence of temporal-order deficits in ckldrrzn with feasning difiicdties (Kraus, McGee, Carrell, Zecker, Nicol & Koch, 1996) and in six-mm&-old infants at familial risk for tearning disatogities fl.,yytinr;m,1997)"Clearly' the most exci,ting and promising advancers toward. understandjng why some people suffer learning disabilities will occur at the bomdaries between the perspectives derived from behavioral, and educatio~~al sciences. the ne~~rological,

References Berninger, V., & Abbcgt, R. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities. Tn G. R. Lyon (EB.), Eramm of Rlrfirence for the Assessmenl of Leanling Disabir'tifies,Baltimore: Brc>okes. Binder, J,, h a , S., P-iammeke, T,, Yetkin, F., Jesmanowicz, A,, Bandettini, ', Wong, E., Estkowski, L., Goidstein, M,, Hau&ton, V., 6r Hyde, J. (1994:). Functional magnetic resonmce imaging of the human auditory cartex. Annals of Neurologyf 35,662-672, Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E., Scfienone, I""., Scarpa, I""., Fraclowik, R,, & Frith, C , (1994). The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study. Bmz'n, 217,1241-4253.

Neuropsycl~olag1'calBasis cf Lcnmizzg Disabilities

77

Chi, 5. G., Daoling; E, C., & Cillest F. H, (1977a). Cyral development af the human 3,86-93. brain. Annals ofNe@roloC~, Chi, J. G., Dt~oling,E. C., & Gilles, E H. ( 3 " S ) . Left-right asymmetries of the temporal speech areas of the human fetus. Arclzives of Neurology!34,346-348, Connoilyf C. J. (1950). External morphology cf tlze pri~nnteb r ~ i n Springfield, . TL: Charles C. Thamas. Demonet, f. E, Price, C., Wise, R., & Frackcjwiak, R. (1994). Differential activation af right and left posterior Sylvian regions by semantic and phonological tasks: A positron emission tomography study in normal human subjects. Neumscience Lct fers, lt73,25-28. Beno, S. (1Cd85). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exccplional Gllildren, 52,2219-232. Booling, E.C., Chi, J.G., & Gilles, EH. (1983). Telencephalic development: Chang.ing gyrat patterns (pp. 94-204). In EH. Giltes, A. Levitan, (4r E.G. Dooling (Eds.), The develwing hzrrnatl brain. Boston, MA: John Might. Egnor, D. (1996). Individuals with disabilities ducation act amendments of 1996: Overview af the U.S. S n a t e bill (S. 15%). Foczas on Aufistrr.and Other Developlrzelztat Disabilities, 33, 194-206. Feuerstein, R. (1979). Bj~lnmicnsscssitnertt of retarded prf-ormers. Baltimore: University Park Press, Foundas, A.L., Leonard, C., Gilmore, R., Fennell, E., (4r Heitman, K. (1993). 32, 131anumtemporale asymmetry and language dominance. Neuro~~sychakogh, 325-1 231. Francis, D., Fletehel; j,, Shaywitz, B., Shaywik, S., & Rourke, B. (1996). Defining learning and language disabilities: Conceptual and psychometric issues with the use c>f IQ tests. Lalzgzrage, Speectz, and kic~ringS e r u i c ~in Sctrools, 21: 132-143. Fristad, M., Tayofosky, S., Wefleirx; E., & Weller, R, (1992). Depression and learning disabilities in children. jour~zralof Afleetive Disorders, 26,53-58. Galaburda, A. (1993). Dyslex-ia nnd deztt3top1rzent:NeurobiologicaI aspects ofmtm-ardinary brairzs. Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press. Geschwind, N., cSr Levitsky Mr. (1968). Human brain: Left-right asymmetry in temporal speech region. Sckncc, 161,18(7--187. Harris, T.L., & Hodges, R,E, (Eds.) (19134).A dictiorzary of re~dingalzd relallld terms. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. H p d , G., Morgan, A., Edmcmdl;, j,,Black, K., Riccio, C,, &r Lornbardino, L, (191)5), Reading disabilities, cornorbid psychopathology, and the specificity of neu12,311-322. rc~linguisticdeficits. Dezliilopmetztnl l\bez~rapsycl.loIogyI f-lynd, C,WtzJ, (13r Cohen, M,J, (1983). Dyslexia: Neztr.apsyclzologicnl tlteoryl researcIz and clinical diferenti~tit?n.Needham Heights, M A : Allyn & Bacon. f-lynd, G,W, & Hiemem, J, (1997). Dyslexia and gyral morph~fogyvariatian (pp. 3&--58). In C. HuXme & M. Snowling (Eds.), D!isLex-in: Biology, cognifl'on,and izzfervnz f-iotz.London: Whurr, Hynd, G.W., Hooper, S., (4r Takahashi, II: (in press). Dyslexia and language-based learning disabilities. In C.E. Cogfey &r R.A. Bmmback (Eds.). Textbook of pediatric ~euroipsyclzl'atry.Wshington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Hynd, C.W, &r Semrud-Clikernan, M. (1989). Dyslexia and brain morphctlagy, Psycli7zalogicaI Bullet in, 306,447482.

H p d , C., Semrud-Cllikeman, M,, Lorys, A.R., Novey, E.S., &r Eliopulos, D. (191)0). Brain morphology in developmental dyslexia and attention deficit disorder/ hyperactivity Archives of Neurology, 47,919-926. CZr Willis, K G . (1988). kdiatric netiropsycl~or'o~qNeedham Heights, Hynd, G,WVV, M A : Aliyn (4r Bacon. Jitendra, A., & Rohena-Diaz, E, (1996). Language assessment of students who are linguistically diverse: Why a discrete approach is not the answer. Sclzool Psycf~ologyRez?iewd25,4&56. Kelly, M., $r Dean, X3.S. (1990). Best practices in neuropsychology, In A. Thamas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Bcst Pmcfices i18 School I"yclzott7gy. Washingtcm, DC: NASP. Kraus, N., MsGee, T.J., Carrell, T.D., Zecker, S.G., Nicol, T.G., & Kach, D,B, (1%6). Auditory neurophysiologie responses and discrimination deficits in children 273,971-973. with learning problems. Scievtc~~ Larsen, !.R, Hoict-n, T., Lundberg, I., & Odegaard, H. (1990). MRT evaluation of the size and symmetry of the planurn ternparale in adolescents with developmental dyslexia. Brain and Language, 39,1289-301. Lemard, C., VwLler, K.K.S., Lombardino, L., Morriq MK., Hynd, C.W., Alexander, A., Andersen, H,, Garofalakis, M,, Honeyman, J., Mao, J,, Agee, Q., & Staab, E. (1993). Anclmalous cerebral sbucture in dyslexia revealed with magnetic resonance imaging. Arclziz~itsof Neurology, 50,461469. Lidz, C.S. (1991). PrnctiSio'oncrtsguide fa dynamic nssessmenf. New York: GuiXford Press. Lombardino, L., Riccio, C.A., Hynd, G.W., & Pinheiro, S.B. (1997). Linguistic deficits in children with reading disabilities. Amcricun lourrznl of SjueecFk-La~z(a;, 71-78. gzt~gePatllol~~gy, Lyytinen, El, (199q. In search of the precursors of dyslexia: A prospedive study of children at risk for reading problems. In C. Hulme CZr M, Snowling QEds.), Bjslaia: Biology, cagr-zikio~z, and inlerue~ztio~t.Lc~ndon:Whurr, Marston, D,B, (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic perbrmance: What it is and why do it. In M.R. Shlnn (Ed.), GuniczrIwr~based measzireme~t: Assessilzg social cl~ildren.New York: The Guilfol-ct Press, MeItzer, L.J. (1994). Asxssment of Xearning disabilities: The challenge of evaluating the cognitive strategies and prclcesses rmderlying learning. In C.R. Lyon (Ed.), Framw of Refere~fcefirtlze Assessurtent r;?f Learning Disabilities, BaXtimore: Bmc~kes. Millen, S., Haughton, V., CZr Yetkin, Z. (1995). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the central auditory pathway following speech and pul-e-tone stimuli. ta~yngoscope,305,1305-1 310. Mcjrgan, A.E., Hynd, G.W., Hall, J., Nc~veyE., & Eliopulos, D. (1996). Flanurn temporale morpholog and linguistic abilities. Manuscript submitted for publication-. Resehly, D.J., & Grimes, !.P. (1990). Best practices in intellectual assessment. In Best Practices in Scltoc?I Psycltology . Washington, D.C. : NASE Riccio, C., &r P-iynd, G, (1%5). Contribukitic~nsaE rreuropsych~lagyto aur understanding of developmental reading problems, Sclzool Psyclzology Rezriew, 24, 415425.

Neuropsycl~olag1'caIBasis cf Lcnmizzg Disabilities

79

Rubens, AB., Mahowald, Nl.We, & P-iuttcm, J.T. (1976). Asymmetry of the lateral (SyXvian)fissures in man. Neurology, 26,62M24, Rumsey; J.M., Anderson, P., Ametkin, A.J., Aquino, T., King, A.C., Hambergex; S.D., Pikus, A., Ragoporl; J.L., & Cohen, R.M. (1992). Failure to activate the left tempc~mparietalcurtex in dyslexia. Arci'liz?esof Neurology, 49,527-534. Semrud-Clikernan, M,, Biederman, J., &r Sprich-Buckrninster, S, (4995). Cornorbidity beween ADHD and learning disability: A review and report in a clinically referred sample. )t?urr-zalof ftze American Acndcrny of 6Izi1d 6Adulesce~zt Psyclziatry' 32,448. Shaywik, B.A., & Shaywitz, S.E. (1991). Crtmorbiclity:A critical issue in attention deficit disorder*Jclumnl c?f Child Nezgmlogy, 6 (Sugpl), SZSS2O. Shlnn, M. (Ed.). (1989). C u r r k u l g a t - b e mmsul.emerzl: Assessing specinl clliMren. New York: Guilford Press. Steinmetz, FT., Ebeiing, U., FTuang, Y., & Kahn, 1I: (1990). Sulcus topography of the parietal opel-cular region: An anatomie and MEU study. Brairt and Lar~gliagc,38, 515-533. Tallal, P,P,, et al, (1996). Scie~~ce, 271,27; 77,81, Tucker, J, (1980). Ethnic proportions in dasses far the learning disabled: Issues in nonbiased asxssrnent. jarat-rzal of-Special Edg.rcation, 14,93-405. Wechster, B. (1974). WcclzsIer Irzlellkence Scales for CIzildt*e?t-irCeztI'sed. New York: I""sychoXc>gicat Corpc~ration. Welkep; (1990). m y does cerebral cortex f i s s u ~and fold? A review of determinants of gyri and sulci. (pp.3-136). In E.G. Jones & A. Peters (Eds.), Cer~brat corfex, 813, New York: Plenum Press. Witelmn, S.E (1982). Bumps on the brain: Right-left anatomic asymmetry as a key ~ n braitz d tcr functional lateralizatic~n.In S.J. Segalowitz (Ed,), l;nrlt;.zr~gefz~ncfio~ts (pp.117-1 43). New York: Academic Press. orgn~izatio~. Witelwn, S.F., & Kigar, D,L. (1992). Sylvian fissure morphology and asymmetry in men and women: Bilateral. differences in relation to handedness in men. Journal cf Contpamfiue Riezkrol~~gy~ 323,32630. Woodcock, R.W., & Johnson, M.B. (1989). Woodcod-\olznson Psyclzoedz-lmtiot~nlTest Bat fe~y-Revised.Boston: Teaching Resources.

This page intentionally left blank

PART TWO

Cognitive Approaches

This page intentionally left blank

Learning Disabilities in Perspective

Without w s t i o n , this is a time of remarkable progress in understanding the nature of- learning djsabilities in gemrd and of reading disabilities in particular. Researchers appear to be converging on possible genetic loci of a c m o n form of specific reading disability. "The resuits of 1ongih;ldinal stu,dies of readi.ng acquisition m k e it possiblc tn identiSly children at risk for the develrzpment of rcading disabilities with considerable accuracy and then tcr begh interventions even prior tcr the onset of reading instruction. The excitemel~tat conferences devoted to readjng djsabilities is nearly palpable. The purpose of this chaptecis to attempt to place this progress in perspective and to consider its implica.t.ions for an account oE learning disabili~es.We begin by considering compethg analogies and perspectives that seek tcr define the fundmental nature of disability. Next we review several behavioral markers of learning djsabilities that have been widely held previously, Then we turn to a discussion of the befilavioral marker that is the cause of much of the recent excitement, namely, a defidt in phonological processing. FinallyI.we discuss implications of research on phonoiogical processing for understanding the nature of reading disabilities and for application of this understanding to diagnosis and treat~~ent.

Which Is the Better Analogy: Obesity or Dwarfism? On any given day, we COME" across people of varying weights and heights. Occasimally, we encounter individuals who fall outside thc. norm in weight, height, or both. Dwarfism is a genetically transmitted condition in which the inabiIi9 to produce a sufficient amoullt of gmwth hornone results in atypicaily

short s t a t e . Diaposis is straightforward. ?"he vast majority of individuals fall hvithin a normd heigt-tt distribution, or bell curve. Xndividuats with dwarfism stmd out as a lump in the distribution at its extreme end. Routine interventions such as changhg the quantity m quality of food consumed has no effect on the condition. However, a specialized treatment invoking supglernentar)i growth hormone can have a recognizable effect on height. C)besity has been lin:ked to both environmentai and genetic factors. Ot7esity typicaUy is det'ined as a ccstain nunnber of p o n d s over average adult weight for the individuaf"~height and bone structurcz. Although the range in h m a n adult height is considerable-the ta.lest baskethall players are roughly four times the height of individuals with dwarfism-the an adult weight is even g ~ a t e rRecorded : weights have exceeded l,,(lt10 pounds. 'This is over ten times the weight of the individuals at the bottom of the distribution for healthy addts, who arc expected to weigh just under 300 pounds. WiLh a. greater range of weight than height, it is at first surprising that hdividuals with dwillrfism are more easily identified than are individuals with obesity Al'though extreme cases af obesity are clear-cut-no one would question that an. individual who weighs 500 pounds is obes problem is where to draw the line. Curmtty, obesity is d e h e d as being 2(3 pounds heavier than the appropriate norm for one's height m d bone structurel but a decade ago, onc wodd have had to have been far heavier to be clizssified as obese, The problem is that the distribution of weight is nearly cmtinwus. There is no obvious break or lump in the distribution to provide a natural cut-pint for diag~nosis.At the base of alf treatmemt is reducing calories consumed and increasixlg calories burned, but this approach is not a specialized one. 'I'he sarne prescription applies to individuals who are not ubese but wish to lose a few pounds before p u t t i s on their bathing suits. W ~ adiffemntiates t dtvarfism and tbesity, then, are (3) the underlyinl; distrfiution (continuous and normal for cthesity), (2) evidence of a specific problem (inability to produce growth hormone for dwarfism), and (3) the existence of a specialized trctammt for the condition.

The Nature of Learning Disabilities Which condition, dwarfism or obesitypprovides the better analogy for learning disabilities? This key question forms the basis of our discussion of the nature, diaposis, and treatment of learning disabiliies in the remaining sections of the chapter, We begin by showing that the dwarfismversus-obesity analogy maps nicely onto a distinction betwerrn two perspectives on learning dis;lbilities,

TABLE 4.4 Comparison of Social-System and Medical-Mcdel Learning Disabilities

Type of Disability Aftn"bzrle

*erity Impact Incidence rate Etiolc>gy Initial diagnosis Proposis

Suci~lSysle~n Mild Primarily affects school performance High, 10%of schoolage population Unknown By school personnel in elementary grades Largely time-limi ted to school years

Medim1 Mudel Maderate, high Affects school and out-ofschool performance Lowf l Oio of schoolage papufation BiologicaX anomaly By medical persomal in infancy Life-long disability

Medical-Model and Smial-Syse"m Pe~.speetiveson Learning Disabilities M e n children with learning disabilities are placed in the larger context of all children with disabilities, two general categories of dkabiliw are apparent: chifdren who are disabled from a medical-mociel perspective m d crihildren who are disabled from a social-system perspectke (Tteschfy, 1996). These categories represent different fundamental views of the nature of disabilities. These two views have impliations fur theorizing about the etiology of learning disabilities and 'or professional practices associated with diagnosis and treatmmt. Attributes that differentiate social-system and medical-model disabiliin Table 4.1. Social-syste~xdis&ilities are mild on the ties are prese~~ted severity scale, and tl-teir impact primarily is limited to the school setting. Medical-model disabilities are moderate to severc., and the impact extends to the home and neighborhood settings..'The incidence rate for social-system disabifities is roughIy 10 percent of school-age children. The incidence rate for meeticatmcrdel disabilities is only about 1percent. The etiology of medicai-model disabilities typicatly ir;a biological anmaly in the form. of verifiable d m a g e to the central or peripheral nervous systems, se3nsory systems, or motoric systems m d may be associated with a knocvn syndrome. 'The etio:lot.;y of social-system &abilities is less well established and may involve the surrounding context (e.g., w a n i z a tional stnrcture of schooling) in addition to or islstead of factors that are intrinsic to the indjvidual. The initial diag1zosi.s of a socid-system disability Qpically is made by school personnel during the elementary school years, and t l ~ disabiliv e is less apparent or wen ahsent when schooling is

completed. For medical-mociel disabilities, the diagnosis usuatly is made by medical personnel withh the first years of Lic, and the consequences of the disabirity endurt. throueout the lifethe. Social-system disabilities include the vast majority of specific learning disabilities such as speech and lmguage dis&ilities, mild mental retardation, and some behavioral problems. Medical-model dlsabilitics include sensory anci physical impairments, moderate and scrverl, retarctation, and c hautism. more severe behavioral disabilities s ~ ~ as

Defizzing L e a m i ~ gDisabilities The most influential dehition of leaming didi1iltit.s has been the one contained in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, Subtitle B, Chapter IIZ, Section 30o*i?,[b][lo]): "Specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or more basic psychological prclcesses involved in understanding or in using language, spc~kenor written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or tcr do mathematical calcufatians. The term indudes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunctian, dyslexia, and dek~elopmentalaphasia. The term does not apply to children who have learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmrtntali, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

This dehition implies that learning disabilities are intrhsic to the individual, a consequence of a disorder in an unspecified basic psychological process that itself is rooted in s m e kind of ""mjnlmal brain clysfunction." The disorder is relatively specific as opposed to general, as achwleeiged by the label "specif c learnilng disability'6 and also by the ruling out of mental retardation as the came of poor performance. Learning disabilities also are distinguished from poor performance attributable to factors associated with poverty. mree assumptions are co on to J L E S ~about all defhitions of learning disabilities*The first assurn is that the locus of the learnhg disabjlity is within the individual. Early work focused on a neurological origin of learning disabilities h the form of minimal brain dysfunction. Later, learning disabilities were attributed to deficiencies in academically related infornation processes. Most recently, application of magnetic resonance imagery (MRI) and other scamhg procedures has awakened intemst in the possi:ble role of neurdogical structural defects in causing

The second assumption is that individuals with learning disabilities do not achieve in one or more areas at a level predicted by their htellectual ability The issue of a discrepancy between intellectual potential and achievement has provoked a great deal of debate &out how best to measure intellectual potential and achievement and how much of a discrepancy ought to be requirtsd (or the &atgnosis of learning disabled, But the basic notion that children with learning disabilities will achieve at a lower level than their IQ wndd prrzdi,ct remains fundarnent.al, and the discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement is what differentiates children wiLh learnimg disabilities from children who are slow learners. The third assumption is that of specificity Endividuals with learning disabilities &owed fmpaired performance in c ~ n eor scrveraf art-as, but not all. If pertomtancc is impaired generally, the probleln is attributed to hited inteliectual: ability, motivation, or some other factor more general than specific learning disabilities. Definitions of Icarning disabi.lities, inchding that contahed i,n IDEA, reflect the medical-model perspective-the dwarfism analogy rather than the obesity one. Further, although not specifically stated in the defis t u d e ~requires ~t that nition, qualifyhg for services as a lear~~ing-disabled the studmt evidence a need for specinl edzllmtion services-the specialized treament uniquely required by students with learning disabilities.

Historically; a number of behavioral markers or indices have been proposed as the basis for diagosing children with learnhg disabilities. We briefly consider the three most influentialbehavioral markers historically before turnkg to the latest and mast widely used hehaviord marker.

Scutfer. m e n the first author was trained as a school psychologist, he was tarrght that a hallmark of learning disabilities was scat.ter m the

Wechsler IQ tests. The Wechsler scaXes typially have 10 subtests, each with a standard score mem of 10 m d a standard deviation of 3. Given the assmption Chat learnin& djsabilities are charackrized by a specific pmcessing disorder, one would expect the pmfiles of students with g disabilitks to be characterked by a mfx of high scores (i.e., areas of slrength) and low scores (areas of weahess). %&er simply refers to vari.ability in subtest performance for an individual. It was this author's experience that scatter was indeed commm in the prdiles of students wilh leasnhg disabilities. It was not unusual to have a number of subtest scores in the average (7 to 13)or even above-average (14+)rmge along with one or more bdow-average scortts (6 or less).

K a u h a n (1976) had the good sense and, beillg employed by the Psychological Corporation at the time, the opportunity to answer a fuxndamental question: HOWmuch scatter is typi.cd for students without disabilities? The assumption was that there ought to be minimal scatter. A child without learl~ingdisabilities who has an IQ of 100-the middle of the average range-would be expected to have subtest scores near 10. But school psychologists wouldn? t o w from direct experience because they routinely give IQ tests only to children who have been referred because of suspected fearnhg or hehavioral disabilities. K a u h a n calculated the range (differencebetwren highest and lowest) in suhscale s c o ~for s the 2,200 children in the standardizatioln s m p e for the Wechsler htelligence Scale for Children-Revised. Because this is a random sample of children, the vast majority of them would not have learning disabilities, The mean slrlbscale-score?range for the standardization sample was 7.0 with a standard deviation of 2.1. Scale scores for an average child wi&crut disabilities common5 ranged from a low cJf 6 or 7 to a high of 13or 14. 'Thus average children show a szlrprising amount of scatter. Rather than being a behavioral marker for learning disabilities, scatter is characteristic of children in general.

Reversals, C h i l h n with learning disa:bilit.ies were &served to reverse letters such as " " b k d ""d" and even to read whole words backward. This suggested that they suffered from a visuaX-perceptual problem that resulted in their seehg mirror images of the letters and words they we= trying to decode. Mokvever, further studies rweafed that young children hvithout disabilities make similar errors when learning to read, Letters such as b and d are comrnonly confused by m a v beginning readers because they are similar both in Ihe somds they represent and htheir visual features, Regi.nning readers also commonly read words backward simply because they have not yet mastemd the convention that all words are read in a single direction (e.g., left to right in English, right to Icft in Hebrecv). When students with learning disabilities were compared to a control group of younger studmts without learning disa:bilities matchrd hreading level, there was no diffe~ncein the frequency of reversals (klktino, 197;f3). Sex diferenf7i'~. A quick scan of a list of names of childrcJn who have been r e f e r ~ dfm evaluation for possible learning disabilities or merely visiting a classroom for children with reading disabilities reveals what is perhaps the most obviaus characteristi,~of children with learning disabilties: Boys appear to be afflicted at a much higher rate than girls, The ratio oi boys to girls in referrals for evaluation and in class rolls of children re-

ceiving special education services is almost afways at kast 2 to 1and routinely approaches or exceeds 4 to 1. This empidcal fact leads to hypotheses about a sex-linked genetic basis for learnjng disability (Crowder & TvVaper, 1991). However, the difference in the prevalence of reading disability between buys and girls appears to be m artiract of referral bias. Boys tend to be m m disruptive than girls a d consequently arc. more likely to be referred for evaluation. For exmple, Shay\yitz and colXeagues (1990) &tained an epidemiologic sample of 215 girls ~and199 boys. This sample came from the Connectkut Longitudinal Study, rescrarch that began with a representative sample of thildrcn attendillg public schod kindergartern in the 1983-1984 school year and continued until the children were graduated. Frorn the overall epidemiologic sample, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Fletcher, and EscObar (1990)identified two sampl,es of reading-disabled students. One sample consisted of students who had been identified as ~ a d i n disabled g by their schools. A research-iclentifid sample consisted of students h o s e r e a h g achievement lagged 1,sor moro stmdard deviatinns behind IQ-based expectations. The schod-idmtified sample showed the fmiliar pattern of a greater prevalence of readjng djsabilities for boys. For second-grade students, 27 (13.6 perccnt) of 198boys and only 7 (3.2 percent) of 216 girls were identified by schoois as rttading disabled. For third-grade students, 20 (10.0 perccnt) out of"199 boys and 9 (4.2 pe~enL)out of 215 girls werc identified as reading disilbled. The ratio of bays to girls was 9.25 to 1in secmd grade and 2.4 to 1 in third grade. In cmtrast, the p~valenceof reading disabilities was morc3 connparable for the research-identified sample. For second-grade students, 17 (8.7 percent) of 196boys and 15 (6.9 pexent) oi 216 girls met the reseaxh criterim for categorization as reading cfisabled. For Fhird-grade students, 18 (9.0 percent) out of 199 boys and 13 (6.0 percent) out of 215 girls met the research criterion, The resultant ratios of boys to girls werc. 1.3 to 1in second grade and 1.5 to 1in third grade. Similar results were obtained in a comparison of prevalernce rates by Fhucci and Childs (1981). They reporkd that although many more boys than girls were served by special schfrds for reading-disabled children, the ratio of boys to girls in a contpanian study of randomly selected students frm a parochial school who met criteria for readhg disabiEties was only 1.2 to 1. h summary, none of the behavioral markers just reviewed support the medical-model disability implied by current defnitims of learning disabilities, Scattc3r on IQ suhkst scores is commm among individuals without learning disabifities, Reversals are common an?ong individuals who are readlng at a beginning level regardless of whether they arc beginning readers without disabilities or older children with l e a m i ~ ~disabilities. g

Srx differences in prwalence of learning disabilities appear to be largely m artifact of referral bias, Defkcit in Phonological Processing

Reading disabjlity is by fas the most common learnkg disability, Much oi the recent excitement in the field of readh~gdisabilities is attributable to the cliscovey of a new behaviod xnarke~Stude~ntswith reading disabilities appear to suiSer from a deficit in one or more areas of phonological processing. m g h t a deficit in phonological processing finaliy be the marker that szlpports the mdical model implitd by definitions of learning disabilities? En the next section, we provide a brief description of readfng-related phonologicral processes; then we consider fmplicaticrns for understmding the n a t w of learning disabilities and for djagnosing and treating t h m .

m a t Are Readi~g-Rela.EedPho~zoFogicalProcessing Abilities? Understanding the nature of reading-wlated phmological processes requires a brief cJigression to review some basic tev& of speech perception. Spoken words are conveyed. through space as varying waves of nccnrsfic energy (Crwder & Wagner, 1991). This energy can be viewed in a speclrogram, which displays the amount of acoustic energy present at various frequencies, Analysis of spectrograms procluced. by spoken words reveals that the separation of words into distinct sounds, or even se11tenct.s into discrek words, is not a featurc of the acorntic si,w"l but rather a cogni.tive/perceptuaI phestomenon. .Although we readily perceive individuat words in sentences and individual speech sounds in words, the acoustic signal that travels k m the speaker's voice to the Iistener" ear is largely continuous. This continuous aspect of speech is apparent to us when we hear fhent speech in a lmguage that we do not understmd-or even when we listen to a differe~ntdialed, as whesz the first author listened to Scottisi-rbrogue while on vacation, The words seem to run together. C)ne Level up .from the acoustic si.gnal is the phonetic. leuel ol speech representation*At the phonetic level, speech is represented. by phones. ('The root of a number cJf terns in this literature such as pljone, photzrsnzc: and phor~ologictrlderives from the Greek wosd phone, \zrhich mems "sound""or "voice.") Phones are the unjversal set of speech sounds found in languages. llldividual phones artl produced by manipulating tl-te placement of the tongue h the mouth and the position of the lips, by vibrathg the vocal cords, and by opening and closing the mouth. The sounds corsttsponding to the letter "V% the w r d s ""toy," '"pot,'kd ""sop'kepresent

different phones despite the fact that they are represented by a single letter hwritten English. To verify that the "tff"ones in the three words really arc produced by subtle differences in articulation, hold your hmd several hches in front of y o u mouth while saying each wmd. Yt)u will feel a pronounced burst of ait: assodated with the "t" in "top"; a Lesser burst of air associated with the ""I' h "pot," and virtually no burst of air associated with the "tf% "stop." The next higher Level is the phonalogi":nl level, at whieh, rcllated p h o ~ ~ e s (calZed allophones) are combined into farniXies catled phonemes. Phonemes represent diffe~ncesfn speech sounds that & p a l differences in meaning-they are differences we hear when attendhg to speech in everyday conversation. At this Ievel, the three phones associated with the "t" kin "top," ""pt," and "stop" are allophones of the single phoneme /t/. The phoneme /t/ is djstinguished k m the phoneme /p/, which signals the fact that the words ""topff m d "pop" have different meanjngs. Midwestern American English (i.e., what is spoken by anchorpersons of national news networks xcept Canadian-born Peter Je~mings)c m be represented with a set of from 35 to 45 phonernes &pending on which classification system is used (Denes c?l PI"inson, 1963). M o v e the phonological level, phonemes are combined into larger units. Important units include msets and rim.es. The onset of a syllable refers to its Fnitial consonmt or consonant cluster, Rime refers to the remaining vowel and cmsonant or cmsonant cluster. Together, onsets and r h e s compose syllables, and in turn, sylliables compose words. An d m s t infinite number of possible combinaticms of phonemes is possible, but oniy a relatively s n t d number actwlly are fomd in a Language, and many of these combinations occur in more &an a single word. For written dphabetic orthographies such as E~~glish, letters mughly correspond to the phonemes. 'Thus the word "tap" consists of Ihe three phonemes / t/, /a/, and /p/ and is spelled with letters =presenting those phonemes. The w r d ""rp,"is spefled the same except fctr a different inilial letter. Given the correspondence between Letters and phonemes, it wodd, v p e a that knowledge of sound stmcturc of one's oral language ought to be useltrl in learning to read. This pcrssihifity has motivated =sea& on retations between the developmelnt of phonological processing abilities and the acquisition of rr?adjng skills.

Three bodies of potentially elated research on phonologicai processes developed in relative isolation (Wag11c.r 8r: Torgesen, 1,987). The first body of =search centers on the concept of phorzologicnl azcinrelzess. Fhmolugical. awareness refers to one's awareness of and access to the sound stmcture

of one's sp&en language fhifattingly, 1972). PhonoZogical awreness tasks typically require individuds to idcntify and/or manipulate speech segments. For example, young children may be asked to distinguish words that rhyme (e.g., "Which word doesn't beft,ng?fan, pm, house.'". C)Ider children and adzllts m y be asked to bland sounds (e.g., /k/ -i-/a/ + /t/ = cat) or delete a speech segment to prohce a different ward (e.g., flat - /l/ = fat). Because of the correspondence between letters and phonemes in alphabetic wrili,n.g system S L I C ~ English, a child with well-developed phonological awareness should find such sy sterms reasonahle and orderly, A child lacking such wareness may perceive alphabetic wri:ing systents to be lagely arbitrary .A second body of research centers on the concqt of phmolqicnl memory. Phonological memory refers to coding information in a sound-based fi-e,,phonological) representation .for eft'icient short-term storage (Baddeley, 1986; Conrad, 1964). You rely m phonological.mernory when you attempt ta remember a phone number after looking it up in a phone book. It is not Che visual images that you store but: rather the n m e s of the digits. Although it used to be believed that a speech-based, short-term, store was fmdamentaily involved in all lmguage activities fncludU.~greading, evidence that a swpristhis view has given way h the face of mo~~ntj.ng ing amount oi language processing can occur outside the confines of traditionai short-term rnemory (Crowder, 3982,3993; Wagnclr, 1996a). Nevertheless, iutdi\ridual and developmental differences in phonological memory may be m r e of a factor when beginning readers attempt to decode worcis. As parts cJf w r d s are decoeied, children need to stem the s m d s of the letters they have decoded as they process the rest of the word. Presumably effirimt phonological.memo9 proves helpful by providing the reader with an accurate list of sounds that have been retrieved and by frceing up cog~nitjveresources to be applied to the difficult-task of blending the sounds into w o d s (Raddeley 1982; Torgesen, 1995). The third body of research centers on the construct of retrieval of p h d o g i c a l codes fsom pecmanelnt memory, and because of the tasks cmmonly used, to measure this construct, it cmmonly is referred to as @onological nnnri~~g, or rapid nming. Much of the pmessing of written and spoken language in\polves retrieving phonological codes or pronunciations associated. with lettersf word segments, and whole words. The efficiency with whi& phonological codes are retrieved may influence the success with which phonological processing is used in decodbg printed words (WoIf, 1991). Tasks c o m m d y used to assess this ability require narning objects or symbols as rapidly as possible. To perfom well, indi~ridualsmust be able to access and articulate symbol names quickly A1thougfn individual difksences in performing each of the t h e kinds of flonclfogical processing tasks have been fotmd to be predictive ct

later rczading abilities, most studies have included mly a sitlgte phone logicd task, thcrehy precluding analyses that could, determine whether the different knds of tasks =presented diffc3rent constructs or, alternatively, *ether the tasks might merc.1~ be imperfect measures of the same construct despite differences in their surface structures" To darify relations between the different kinds of phonological processing tasks and the constructs themselves, we carried out a series sf studi.es in wt-rich rcllatively large groups of child.ren were g i v a ~mdtiple measurcs of each of the three kinds of phonological processing abilities. Conf rmatory factor analysis then was used to test alternative models of the nature of these abilities. In a study of preschoalers, multiple measures of each of the three kinds of phonologicat processing abilities were administered to 331 four- and five-year-old prereading chjldreln (Wagner et al., 1,987).The phonological awareness measures included counting syllables, elision (dropping) of syllables from words, elision sf syilables from nonwords, b l m h g syllables, alnd sound caEegorization (picking the odd sound out of "pin," "pit,'banb "pe gw;Bradley (t; Bryant, 1985). The phonofugical memory tasks included memory for letter strings p ~ s e n t e dorally, memcrry for vis~talfyprexnted series of pictures of c m m n n objects, and articulation rate. The phonofogiral naming tasks included rapid naming of strings oi common objects, rapid naming of strings of colors, rapid naming of strings of letters, and the Posner task using line &wings of animais. Measures of general cognitive abiliq included the vocabulary and blockdesign suhksts of the Wechskr Preschool and Primary tntdigence k a l e . The results were that prereaders' phonological processing abilitks were well represented by a model that consisted. of two kinds of abilities. The first accounted for Lndividual differences s n both awareness and memory tasks. The second accounted for individual & f e n c e s in phonologiral naming tasks. The interesting result was that two kinds of phonological processing tasks, wareness and memory, each emerging from a &lferem.t. literature and having mrkediy diffcrent szxrface structures, have the3 same origin of individual differences. In short, diffcrent tasks were measuring the samc. construct. In a second cross-sectional, study, mmultiple measures of each of the three kinds of phonological processing abilities were administerd to samples of 95 kinciergarten and 89 second-grade studcrnts (Waper, Torgesen, tJaughorl,Simmons, 8r: Rashotte, 1,993).Meas~tresof phonological awareness included segmenting phonemes, elidirtg phonemes, isolating sounds, categorizing sounds, blendix~gonsets and rimes, blending phonemes inta words, and blending phonemes inta nonwords. The phonologiral memory tasks included memory for digits presented orally, memory far digits presented visually, mmmory for sentences, and a work-

ing-memory task. Measures of phonologicat code retrieval incfudcrd n m i n g digits and n m i n g letters with isolded-trial and serial versims of each task. The results repIicated m d extenltrd those cibtained from the preschool study, For the kindergartm sample, a modet with two kinds of phonological processing, awarctmess/mernosy m d naming, again provided a good fit to the data. By second grade, the pattern of rclsults was similar except that awarclness and memory no longer coulci be represented by a single factor, although their respective factors remai,ned EiigbIy correlated: r = .78, p 4.001. Follow-up longikdinal studies have suyparted these findings (Wagner, Tctrgesen, (% Rasfiotte, 1994; Wagner et al, 1997). h u n g children's phonologiral processing abilities arc weIl described by a set of three distinct yet correlated abilities. These include phowlogical atruarewss, which can be subdjvided into anajysis and synthesis; p h d o g i c a l memory; and phondogical naming. For very young children, analqisis and phonological memory are fndistingufshable. Rut with development, analysis and phonological memory become distinct individual-differace Ifactors.

Relafiotzs bet wee^ tlze Development of PhonoEog.icat Pmcrssilr,g Skills and the Acquisitiotz of Reading Children's phonological processhg abilities are of particular hterest because they appear to be causally related to the acquisition of beg4nning ~ a d i n gskills, Athough the magnitude and even the dlrcction of proposed causal relations remain the suhject of dcbate (RaI1 (% Hachman, 1988; Bradley & Bryant, 1385; B-ryant, Bradley, Mactean, & Crossland, 1989; Ehri, 1987; Lurtdberg, Frost, Petersen, 1988; Perfetti, Bell, Beck, & Hughes, 1987; Stixno~ich~ 1986; Treiman, 1991; Turner & Nesdale, 1985; Wagnex; 1988; Miagner & Torgesen, 1987). n r e e alternative views of causal relations betwecm the developmat of phonological processjng abilities and the acquisitiol~of word-evel reading skills have been proposed. The first view is that the development of phonological pocesing abiiities facilitates the acquisition of beginnhg reading skills (Jorm & Share, 1983; Liberman, 1983; Z,iberman, Shankweilier, & Liberman, 1989; W ~ e &r Torgesen, 1"3817")Evidence in suppo" of this view includes a large number of longituetinal studies in which a phonological task, giwn in kindcrgaten or first grade prediclts subsequent word decoding (Eradley & Bryant, 1985; Bryant, MacLean, Bradley, & Crossland, 1990; Byme, Freebody, & Gates, 1992; Foorman, Francis, N'ovy gh: Z,iberm,an, 1,991; Juel, Griffith, cYr: Gough, 1986; Lundberg, Olofssm, & Wall, 1980; Stanovich, GmnSn.gham, & Cramer, 1984; Tunmer, Herrhnan, & Mesdale, 1988; Tunmer c?l Nesdale, 1985; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987),

TABLE 4.2 Stability of Phonological 13rocessingAbilities and Word-kvd Reading Vnrinble First. Grade Second Grade Tbid Gradiy Fo~rtFzGrade Awarenms Memary Naming Word-level reading

0.83 1.00 0.84 0.69

0.62. 0.93 0,144 0.39

0.64 0.89 0.60 0.33

0.63 0.77 0.55 0.2'7

The s e c o ~ ~view d is that the causal arrow goes the other way: Learning to read facilitates the development of phonological processing abilities (Ehri, 1913.2, 1987; Morais, 1991; Nlorais, Alegria, & Csntcnt, 1987). Evidence in support of this view includes the fact that adult illiterates and young p-ereaders perfsrm poorly on phonological tasks that require identification or manipulation of phonemes (Liberman, Sbmkwder, Fischer, 8r Carter, 1924; Morais, Cary, Alegria, & Bertelson, 1929, Wargner et al., 1987). The fact that children sometimes make ""selling errors" on phonological awareness tasks-for example, when they count more pho~~ernes in "pitch" than in ""rch" "cause the former has more lettersprovides indirect evidence of the knowledge of printed words affecting performance on phonological awareness measms (Ehri & Wilce, 19Ktl; Tunmer and Nesdale, 1985). The final view is that the causal relations are reciprocal (Perfetti, Beck, Bell, & Hughes, 1987; Stmovich, 1986; Tunmer & Kohl, 1991). According to this view, rudimentary phonological awareness-perhaps up to an awareness of onset and rime-facilitaks learnjng to mad. Learning to read, in turn, facititates the deveioprnent of a more full-blown awareness that results in the ability to segment words completely into phonemes. We carried out a five-year longitudinal study of 216 children that began when they entered kindergarten (Wagner et al., 1994, in press). Each year we gave them a baeery of pho~dogicaltasks and rclfere~~ce measures, including mulliple measures of each of the three knds of $onological processing abilities and of wod-lwel ~ a d i n gWe . used structural eguation modeling to esthate the magnihdes and directions of causal rclat.ions bctwem phmologiral processirmg abilities m d wd-level reading. Two resdts were of inf;erest.First, individual differences in p h o l o g i caii procest;ing abilities were remarkatoly stable kom year to year. Stabi%ity coefficients (i.e., correlations between phonological processing abilities from one year tc:,the next) are prt-sent& in 'fhble 4.2. 'T'he stability of individual djffereaees in phonological processing abilities xtrrally eqztalcd or exceeded that of reading or verbal abiMy The second result af hterest was evidence af bidirectional causal relations. Table 4.3 cmtains the independat causat influetnces of individxlal

TABLE 4,3 Causal Influences of Indir~idualDiffewnces in Pl~onological Processing Abilities, Vocabulary, and the Autoregressive Effect of i?rior Reading (at K, Ist, and 2nd grades) on Subwquent Individual Differences in Word-kvel Reading (at 2nd, 3~x3,and 4th grades)

Exogenous Cn~lses Phanalagical processing variables Awareness Memory Naming Control variables Vilcabulary A~toregres~~)r

Ir; to 212d

1st to 3rd

2rzd to 4th

.37l .12 25"

.2g2 -.Q3 .212

.2Y1

.l0 .02

.22l .2[72

-.Q1 .57l

.0'7

.07

differences inphonological processing abilities on subsequent word.-level reading. For every time period examined, indiwidual differences in pho~~ological awareness exerted a causal influence on subsequent individual difkrences h word-level reading. Individual differences in naming and vocabulary exerted independent causal influences on subsequent individual differences in word-level reading initially, but these hflumccs faded with developmnt as individud differences in wordlevel reading become increasingly stable. T"h increase in stability of word-level rcladi,ng is represented by the incrclasing autoregxssivc effect of prior word-level reading on subseclquent word-level reading, Endividual differences in phonological memory &d not exert an independent causal. influc.net. on subsequent individml clifferences in word-level reading for any tirne period. Regarding reciprocal causai ~latictnsbetween both word-level reading m d letter-name howledge on. st~bsequentphonological processing abilities, there was no evidcnce of a causal.influence of word-level reading on subsequent phoncllogicat processing for arty time period examined. Mowevcr, letter-nme knowledge djd exert a causal influelnce on szxbseyuent phonological processing abilities, as shnwn by the resdts presented in Table 4.4. Carnal influences of individzxal differences in Icnes-name bocvledge were found for subti-equent in.dividual differcmces in both phonological awareness and naming, The absence of a causal influence of letter-name hacvledge on subsequent phonological rncmory appears to reflect the grater stability of indiviual differcnres in phonologkal memory relative to phonological awareness m d naming (see Table 4.2).

TABLE 4,4 Causal Influences of Indiriidual Diffewnces in Letter-Name Knowledge (at K and 1st grades) on Subsequent Individual Differences in Phono>logicalI""rc>cessing Abilities (at 2nd and 3rd grades)

Elxt~getzousCauses Awareness tetter-name howledge Control variables Vc3cabuXary Autoregressor Memory Letter-name howledge Control variables Vilcabulary Autoregressor Naming Letter-name knowledge Control variables Vocabut ary Autoregressor

K fa 2tzd

1st fa 3rd

'23"

.lz3

.19"

.IF

.$S1

.701

'05

'3.0

-.Q6

-.l4 1.OO1

I??!.

22'

.IS3

.08 .5z1

-.0g2 .X1

Deficits i~1 Pko~ologicalProctsssi?,g as a Cause of Readillg Disabilities

h ~ c m years, t a consasus has emerged that a defieit in phonulogical processing is a likely cause of the majority of cases of reading disability (Bruck, 1990; Bmck & Trehm, 1990; Felton & Wood, 1990; Olson, Wise, Conners, Rack, & Ft~lker,19H;Siegel & Ryan, 1988; %ankweiler $r Liberman, 1989; Sanavich, 1988; Torgesen, 1991, Waper, 1986).Torgesen (this volume) provides a coherent and up-to-date statement of this position. The majority of children with reading disabilities are believed to have a deficit in some aspect of phonological processing that greatly impairs their ability to learn to read yet leaves their ability to understand and produce speech largely intact. Whether subtle indications of a deficit in phonological processing are evident in children's speech perception or production has yet to be resolved but promises to be an area of keen interest. What are the implications for the issue we began with-namely, whether obesity or dwarfism provides the more apt analogy for reading disabilities-of the consensus that a deficit in phonological processhg is the basis for the majority of cases of reading disability, and what are the implications for diagnosis and treatment? Recall that three considera-

tions arc. important in detern?ining medical-model-based conditicms such as dwarfism, as opposed to social-systm-model-basedconditions such as obesiq: (1)whether the underlying distribution is continuous and normal; (2) whether there is evidclnce of a specific problem; and (3) tryhether a speciahed t r e a t ~ a e exists ~ ~ t that is uniquety beneficial, to individuals who have the condition,

UszderIyi~qWistribrsfion, Is the= a bwlnp in the lower tail of the distribution of reading skilI that represents a subpopulation of children with reacling liisabilities? Although some early studies suggested that this might be the case (see, e.g., Rutter & Yule, t,975), morc extensive recent studies suggest no evidence of a burrrp in the lower tail of the distribution of reacling skilt. For example, Shayc~itzand colleagues (1992) examined the distribution of readjng skill fctr 414 childrfjn fro1111 the Comecti.. cut Longitudinal Shdy. They operationalized readin.g djsabiliy in terms of severaf kinds of discrepancy scorns that ~antifirrddeviation of reading skill front predictions based on IQ. The disc~pancyscores followed a univariate normal distribution, and correlations among the various discrepancy s c m s they examfned followed a bfvariate normal ciistribution. They concluded Chat reading disability is past of a continuum of rcacling skill that includes normal reading.

Sg~@city t f l k Problem. A speeific learning clisabilit4; including reading disability, is defined as a disorder in one or more basic psychofugical processes. Exclucfed are learning problems that are the result of more general causes such as mental retardation, poor instruction, and economic disadvantage, In particular, a discrepancy between predicted levels of achievement and actual achiewement has been a requirement for diagnosis. The assumption is that children whose levels of achievement are discrepant from their IQs differ in cognitive characteristics and potentjal for remediation from children whose levels of achievement are consistent with their IQs. Fletcher m d others (1994) compa~cda reading-disabled sampae made up of poor readers whose reading level was diswpant from their I()s with a sample of"'"garden variety" poor readers whose rclading level was consistent with their IQs, Despite the fact that phonological awareness ~ l i a b t ydiscriminated both groups of poor readers from good rttaders, there were no differaces between the rcladir?g-&sad sarnpfc and the garden-variety poor readers on m y c~gIlj-tivevariable examined including measures of phondogkal processing. 'f'hus a clteficimcy in phonological, processing ought to be viekved as a characteristic of poor rclading regardless of its cause, not as a specific indieator of reading disabiliry (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994).

Existetzce ofa Specilrlized Treatlrzmt. Roughly 25 studies have been carried out to date in kvhich a training program has been employed to boust phonologira) awareness. Same of the studies have involved young children at risk for reading faiture or students with reading disabifities. Other studies involved random, samples of beghning readers or prereaders, A meta-anaksis of this literature indicates that trahing phonological wareness fmpmves word-lwel ~ a d i l l tskills, ; particutarly phonetic dec o h g of nomvods (Wagner, f 99tjb). Rut does this finding constit-Llteevidence of a specialized treatmmt for reading disabilities? It is too early to tell, although the completion of long-term pmspective treat~aentstudies in the next few years should help to anskver this question, The reason for caution is that phonological awareness trainixrg, particularly when it is coupled with training in letter-sound correspondences and in other aspects of phonics, may prove to be beneficial to many children whether or not they have readiurg disabilities. Further, when the effects of training are examined for fndividuals as opposed to just at the group level, it routinely is the case that a group of children do not respond to trainhg. These cbildren may represent those children in the san-tples who actually have a ~ a d i n gdisability, or perhaps a severe form of readkg disability Summaxy and Implications From its early history, the field of learning disabilities has been cbaracterized by a split between basic assumptions about the nature of learning disabilities and a research lkraturc. that suggests these assumptions are unfounded.. These basic assumptions are evident from definitions of g disabiliticts, includillg the dominant defhiticm pmwided by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), all of which assume that (1)the locus of the disability is within the individual, (2) achievement is below predictions based on intellectual ability, and (3) impaired performance can cxcur i,n one or several areas but not all. This definition =presents a medical-model perspective; the preferred analogy is that of dwarfism as opposed to ohesity. We evaluated behavioral markers that traditionally have been proposed as markt-trs of learning disabilities (e.g., scat-ter, reversals, sex d.& ferences) using three criteria: (1)whether the underlying distribution is cmtinuous and normal, (2) wfiether there is evidence of a specific problem, and (3) whether a specialized treatment exists that is uniquely beneficial to individuals who have the condition, None of the traditional behavioral markers met the criterion for establishment of a medical-model-based disability. Had we more space, the same conclusion would have been reached for other efforts that did not pan out, f*r

example, eye-mwment training and remediation of purported psycholinguistic or visual-perceptual disabilities evidenced by poor perfosmance m measurcs such as the Zllinois Test of Psycholinguistic Milities (IPA)' Wth a growhg consensus that a deficit in pho11oXogical pracesshg is the cause of the majorily of cases of rcading disability, we revisited the issue of the "utter analogy for reading disabilities. For now, the conclusion relnains as it was for other behavioral markers. h a i y s i s of the distribution of reading skill jundicates that reading disability is part of a normally distributed cmtinuum of rea$.ing skill that includes nomal rczadingf as opposed to a lump inChe lower tail of the distribution. h deficit hphonologiral processixrg is general to children who are poor readers for a variety of causes as opposed to specific to c h i l d ~ nwho fit the de8ni"cicm of reading disability. Fhally although phonological.awareness t r a h h g programs improve word-level reading skilfs on average, there is as yet no evidence that this training represents a specialized trcllament for children with rcladi,ng disabilities. In fact, analysis of the effects of ireatmem.t.at the level of the individual as opposed to the group indjcates that some children-perhaps those with real or sewert- disabilities--do not ~ s p o n d to trainhg. Rctading disabi.lily remains best characterized as a social-system phenomcmon trhat emerges from a ccmflict between the educational weds of some c,hildren and traditional educational practices. Where does this leave us with respect to diagnosis and remediatim? We cmsider disposing and labeling children as thaw they suffered .from a medical-model-type disability, when in fact the problem is a social-system-type misfit between educational needs and traditjmal educational practice, to be scapegoating. We reca end elhinating this practice for all social-system disabilities, which apply to the majjority of children with learning disabiljties. Diagnosis and laheling should he reserved for verifiable medical-model disabilities. Our wwking with children and reading of the Literatme suggest to us that a severc form of reading disability exists that wodd meet most, if not all, of the medicalmodel criteria (see Table 4.1). However, the prevalence of this disability is likely to be cfaser to 1-43percent of school-age childre11 as opposed to recent estimates of 20-30 percent (Lyon, 1996). We believe our view to be largely ccmsistent with Spear-Swerling and Sternbergfs ((1996) analysjs of the development of reading disabilities. Similarities are apparent between the Fntrinsic and extrinsic aspects ol: their interactive model and the medical-model and social-system perspectives we have described. E-fokvcver,although it clearly is necessary to consider both htrhsic and extri;nsic factors in describing how children became identified as having reading disabilities, at another level it is im-

portant to recognize a fundamental antagonism. If there is no convhcimg evidence of a medical-model type, intrinsic disorder, and we suggest that there is not for the vast majority of poor readers, it approaches dishonesty to act as though we had idt.nt3icl.d such a disorder when working with students and their families. Further, progress in our understmding of readjng probfems through research is likely to be impeded by a futile search for a high-incidence, nonexistent syndrome. Wrs don't mean to suggest t-hat poor reading is not a pervasive problem or that we do not need to devote a great deal of effort to helping children who have trouble lea g ta read. As Ellis noted in the case of obesity, "For p e m e of any given age and heighl there wilt be an uninterrupted continuum from painfully thin to inordinately fat. ft is entirely arbitrar). where we draw the line between the nomal and obese, but that does not prevent obesity being a real and worrying condition, nor does it: prevent research into the causes and cures of ubesity being both valuab2e and necessaryf"(EIlis, 1985, p. 372, cited in Cmwder & Waper, 1992). What does change is ovlr expectat.ionsabout potential causes and cures of common cases of poor readi.ng. W ought not to expect magic bullets, distinctive syndromes, or cognitive deficits for the vast majority of poor readers. 'The best hope is a rnarked increase in individ,ualization in reading instruction, perh.aps made more practical as technulogy including computer-based reading tutorial pmgrams becomes more effective and commonplace. If the label of reading disabiiity is to be mixintained, it ought to be applied to schooXs rather than children (with the possjble exception of a rare, severe fonn of reading problem), and identifying and treatkg schools with reading disabilities ought to be our highest priority.

References Baddeley; A. (1982). Reading and working memory. BuEleti~zof ftzc Brifisfz Pycf~ological Society, 35,414417. Baddeley, A. (1986). Workir?gYrtenfofy.New Ycfrk: Oxford University Press. Batl, E., & Blachman, B. (1988). 13honologisal segmentation training: Effects of reading readiness. Annals of Dyslexi~,38,20&225. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. P,1985),Xllym~a~zdrmsun itz rtrtzdizzg and spelling. Ann Arbor, MI: Universi.e-3Jof Michigan Press. Brrrck, M, (1990). Word recognition skills of adults with childhc~oddiagnoses of dyslexia. Z)everfo&lnzent-~Z Psycblogy, 26,439454. Brrrck, M,, & Treiman, R, (1990). Phonc>logicalawareness and spelling in normal children and dyslcrxics: The case of initial consonant clusters. foz-lrrzalofExpen'menfnlC1ziZd Byclrology, 50, 156-1 78. Bryant, R E., Bradley, L., MacLean, M,, &E Crossland, B. (1989). Nursery rhymes, phonological skills and reading. burnal of Cllild Lnlzguage, 16,407428.

Bryant, P",, MacLean, M,, Bradley, L., & Crossland, J, (1990). Wyme and alliteration, phoneme detection and learning to read, Dez~elopnre~tal Psyclirology, 26, 429438. Byme, B,, Freebody, I?., & Gates, A, (1992). Longitudinal data on the relations of word-reading strategies to comprehension, reading time, and phonemic atvareness. Reading Research Qzrwrterly, 27,141-151. Conrad, R. (1964). Acoustic confusions in immediate memoEy. BrZ'tisJt Jol4rntzl of PsycI1ott7gy55,"i"84. Crowde~;W. G. (1982). The demise of short-term memory Aeta Psycizala;2z'cn,50, 291-293. Crowder, R. G. (1993).Short-term memory: Where do we stand? Memory b Cqnitio~;"~, 21,142-145. Crowder, R, G,, & Waper, 1%.K, (1991). The psyclzalon I?(readilzg,New York: Oxford University Press. Denes, P. B., & Pinmn, E. N. (1963). The speeclz clznl'tz, Murray Hill, NJ: Bell Telephone Laboratories. Ehri, L,C, (1984).The development of spelling howledge and its role in reading Disnbilifies, 22,356-365. acquisitian and reading disability. lfotarrzaloflearrzi~~g Ehri, L, C. (1987).teaming to read and spell words. journal ofXeadirzg Behz~iol;19, 5-31. Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1980). The influence of orthography on readers' ccmceptualizatiun of the phonemic structure of words. Applied Psyelzolilzguistics, 3 , 371-385. Felton, K,H,, & Wood, F. B. (1990). Copitive deficits in reading disability and attention deficit disorder. In J. K. Tc>rgesen(Eci.), Gognl'ikle nlzd b~lzlavioralchamctel-islim ofcIirildre~2with Iearr-zi?.lgdisabilifies,Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Finucci, J. M,, & Childs, B, (1981). Are there really more dyslaic boys than girls? In A, Ansara, N. Ceshwind, A. Galaburda, M, Albert &r N. Gartrefl (Eds.), Gender dgerences irz dyslexia (pp. 1-9)- Townsrrm, MD: Orton Dyslexia Society, Fleteher; f. M., Shay~iitz,S. E., Shankweiiier, D. E, Katz, l,.,Liberman, I. U', Stuebing, K, K., Francis, B. J,, Fowler, A. E., & Shayvvitz, B, A. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disabiliv: Comparisons of dixregancy and low achievement definitions. journal of Edzlcalio~latPqctzology, SG,&23. Fc>orman,B. R., Francis, D. J., Novy P). M., & 1,iberman D. (1991). How lettersound instruction mediates pmgress in first-grade reading and spelling, lourlzal of EducafiofialPsychalo~,83,456-469, Jorm, A, F., &r Share, D, L. (1983). Pkoncllogical recoding and reading acquisititic)n. Applied Psycltolz'ngziz'sfics,4, 103-1 47, Juel, C., GriFfith, F., & Gough, P. (1986) Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second gade. joumnl I?(EducafbrlalZSsycltalogy, 78, 24S255. Kaufman, A. S. (19x1;). A new approach to the interpretation of test scatter on the WISC-R. J;ozrmnlof rlearnizzg Dz'snbilifim,9,3>41. Liberman, 1. U,,(1983).A language-oriented view of reading and its disabilities. In H, Myktebust (Ed.), Progress itz learni~zgdisabilities (Vol. 5, pp. 81-101). New York: Grune & Strattctn.

Liberman, I, Y., Shankweiler, D,, Fischel; F. W., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Jcrlirrzcal of Experimental Child Psycjtology, 18,201 -21 2. Liberman, I, V,, Shanheiler, B., & Liberman, A. M, (1989). The alphabetic principle and learning to read. In D. ShankweiXeif & I. 3'. Liberman, (Eds.), Phonology alzd rmditzg dl'sabilify: Solvi~tgtlic re~dingpuzzle. A m Arbor, MI: U. of Michigan Press. Lundberg, I., Frost, I,, & Petersen, 0. (1988). Effects of an extemive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Rcrsmrcfi Qlmrkerty, 23,263-284. Lundberg, X,, Olofsson, A., & Wall, S, (1980). Reading and spelling skills in the first school years predicted from phonemic awareness skills in kindergarten. Scandinckvim fournnl of Psycl~ology,21,159-173. Mattingly I . G. (1972). Reading, the linguistic prcjcess and linguistic awareness. In J. Kavanagh & 1. Mattingly (Eds.), La~lgzrageby car and by eye (pp. 133-447). Cambridge, MA: MTT Press. Morais, J. (1991). Phonological awareness: A bridge beween language and literacy, In D. Sawyer & B, Fax (Eds,), Pltonolo331. Olson, R., Wise, B., Conners, F., Rack, J., & FuXker, P). (1989). Specific deficib in component reading and language skills: Genetic and environmental influences. fmat mnl c?f knnzing Disabilities, 22, 339-348. Perfetti, C, A., Beck, I,, Belt, L, C., &r E-lughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill-Pnlmcr Qzl~rterly,33,283-319* Reschiy, D. J, (1996). Identification and assessment of students with disabilities. Special Edzlcntbnfor Students with Disabilities, 6,4&53. Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (19m5).The concept of specific reading retardation, jara?-rzal o jG l i Z Psycjtol~~gy and Psyclzia try, 1 6, l81-3 97. Shankweilel; B., cSs. Liberman, 2. (1989). Plzorzolt~gyand Rmdi~zgDisability. IARLD Monograph, No. 6. A m Arbor, MX: University Press, Shaywik, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A,, Fletchel; j. M,, &r Esc&ar, M, D. (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls. journal of tlte Anwricat.2 Medical Assoeint ion, 264,998-1 002.. Shaywitz, S. E,, Escobar, M. B,, Shaywitz, B. A,, Fletcher, J, M., & Makuch, R. (19532). Evidence that dyslexia may represent the low-er taif,of a normal distribution of eading ability. NEWEngland Jourr-zalof Medicine, 326,145-150. Siege1 L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1988). Reading disabiliv as a language disordex: Renfedial and Special Edzimfiotz, 5(31,28-33, Spear-SwerXing, L., & Stemberg, R, J. (1996). Off track: WIzelz poor reaclszrs become "lmrr-zi~tgdisabled." hufder, CO: Westview Prss.

Stanovich, K. E, (19%). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Readr'tzg Researcl! Quarterly, 221, 3604017. Stanovich, M, E. (1Cd88).The right and wrong places to look for the cognitive locus of reading disabiliq. Annals c$ XII!~slex-in,38,154-1 '77. Stanovich, K, E., Cunningham, A. E,, & Cramer, B. (1984). Assessing phonalogieal awarenas in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability. Joztmal of Experimenf~lClzild Pqfctlology, 38,175-190. Stanovich, K. E., CZr Siegel, L. S, (1994). The phenotypic performance profile of reading-disabled children: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference modet. foz-lrrzal of Educafl'cltmEPsycltology, 86,24--53. Tc>rgesen,J. K. (1991). Cross-age consistency in phonologieat pro>cessing.In S. Brady CZr D. Shmkweiler (Eds,), PJzs~rologicalprocess^ Sirz lifer~cy.Hilitsdalef NJ: Lawrence ErXbaum Associates. Torgesn, J. K. (1995). A model of memory from an info3rmation-processingperspedive: The special case of phonological mernoT. Tn R. Lyon & N. Krasnegor (Eds.), Affetztiorz, memnq, and execufivefinct-iot2 (pp. 157-1%). Baltimore, MD: Bro&s, Treiman, K, (1991). Pl~onologicalawareness and its roles in learning to read and spell, In D. J. Sawyer CZr B, J. Fox (Eds.), Plzonola;~z'calawareness irz readirtg: The euolzllion of c u m n i pelspeefives (pp. 159-1 89). New Yc3rk: Springer-VerXag. Tunmer, W, E., Hemirnan, M, L., cl, Nesdale, A. 13. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Rending RcsearcIz Quarterly, 23,134-1 58. Tunmer, W. E,, & Nesdale, A. R, (1"r)S). Phonemic segmentation skill and beginning reading. Journal of Educnfional Psycllology, ;77,417-427. Tunmer, W. E., & Kohl, M. (1991), PhonclEogical awareness and reading acquisition. In B. Sawyer & B, Fux (Eels.), I;3honological awareness in rmdiug: TIae ezwlution of ezkrre~tt perspectives (pp. 1-30). New York: Springer-Verlag. Vellutino, E R, (1978). Toward an understanding of dyslexia: 13sychological factors in specific reading disabitity. In A. t . Benton (4r D. Pearl (Eds.), Dyslexia: An appraisal of current ktrozdedge, New tlork: Oxford University Press, Vetlutino, E, (4r Scanion, D. M. (1987). Phonolc>gicatcoding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from Longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-l;"nlnzw QunrEetly, 33,321-364. Wagner, K, K. (1986). Phoncllogical processing abilities and reading: Implications far disabtd readers. fotarrzal oflearrzr'r~gDz'sabl'lities, 39,623-630. Wagner, R. K. (1988). Causal relations beween the development of phonalogieal processing abilities and the acquisitian of reading skills: A meta-analysis, Merrill-Palmer Qz~arEetly,315,261-279. Wagner, R, K. Ql996a). From simple structure to complex function: Major trends in the development of theories, models, and measurements of memory In R. Lyon & N. Krasnegr~r(Edti.), Atfenlion, memory! arzd excczkliv-eftdtnetiorz (pp. 337-1176). Baltimore, MD: Bmoh. Wagner, R, K, (1996b, April). Does phonological nwretzess frainittg ertlmlzce chiIdre~tS acquisition I?( zur.z'ftenInnguqe? A mekrl-~nnlysis.Payer presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Rewareh Association, New York.

Wagner, R, K., Balthazor, M,, Hurley S., Morgan, S,, Kashotte, C., Shaner, K,, Simmons, K,, & Stage, S. (2987).The nature of prereaders' phonological processing abilities, GngrzifiueDeveEapnzenl., 2,355-373. Wagner, R, K,, &r Torgesen, j. K. (1987). "Te nature of phanolo@caX processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. PsyclzoEogic~lBztlletin, 203, 192-212. Wagner, R. K., Tc>~.gesen, J. K., Laughon, P,, Sirnmons, K., (4r Rasht>tte,C. A. (1993). Development of young readers+honc>logieal processing abilities. Ju~dr~lat of Edi r c ~ian~kl f Psyclzology, 85,83--103. Wagner, R, K., T a r g e ~ nI,, K., &r hshcjtte, C, A, (1994). Development of readingrelated phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional causality from a Xatent variable longitudinal study. Dezjelopmenlnf PsyelroErjgy, 30, 7&87, Wagner, R. K., Tc>~.gesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R,, Donahue, f ,,&r Garon, 7: (1997). Changing relations beween phcmologicat prcxcemkg abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning tcr Eluent readers: A five-year longitudinal study. Devettymental Pycl~ology~ 33,468-4753. Wolf, M. (1994). Naming speed and reading: The contribution of the cognitive neurosciences. Reading Researclz Qldnrferly, 26, 12S141.

Phonologically Based Reading Disabilities: Toward a Coherent Theory of One Kind of Learning Disability

This book shows that it is possi:blc to have multipie, and pPrhaps quite divergmt, paspectives on the nature of learning disabilities. Disagreement and varying perspectkczs on the concept of )earning disabilities have been part of the field since its beg ing. However, it is my view that our discussions about: the natram of learning disabilities shoutd be constrizhed to a much narrower range of ophion than they usually are. The starthg place for these discussions should be the defini.tion of learning disabilities that has been at the core of the field since the beginnhg flictrgesem, 1,995).Athough aeMeving a cmsensus about a specific definition of learnjng disabilities has been difficult, there has never been serious disagreement among those most closely invoZved in the fiefd about offered its centraj elements..'These elements are reflected in the definitio~~ by the National Joint Cmmittee on Learning Disabilities, which is probably the one most widely agreed upon in the field today (flammill, 1990): Learning disabilities is a general term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by sipificant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, tzrriting, reasoning, or mathematical abilities.

The research repo&ed in this chapter was supported by grant numbers WD23340 and E-IDJQ988from t11e National Institute of Child Ekeltlz and Human Development, and by grants from the National Center for Learning Disabilities, ancl the Bonald L. Hammill Foundation.

PlrZonologic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

107

These disorders are intrinsic to the individual, presumed to be clue tcr central nevvous system dysfmction, and rnay occur across the life span. PrcjbXems in self-regulatory-behaviors, so~cialperception, and, social interaction rnay exist with learning disabilities but do not by thernset\res constitute a learning disability Although learning disabilities rnay occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (for example, sensory impairment, mental retardation, serious ematimal disturbance) or with extrinsic inRuenees (such as cultural differmces, insufficient or inappropriate instruction), they are not the result of those conditions or influences. (NJCLD Memorandum, 1988)

This definjtion contains three important elements that shoutd constrain our *&king and speculations about the nabre of teaming disabilities: (I) the idea that the term '"earniag disabil.itiesr'rrefers to more than a single type of leasnhg disorder, (2) the statement that these leamisrg disorders are intrinsic to the individual and the result of same type of dysfuxzdion in the central nervous system, and (3) the assertrim that they are different k m those caused by pervasive or general mental deficiency or lack of opportunities or motivation to learn. These b e n t s should direct our attention to learning problems that are specific, or timited, h their impact on cowtive development and &at are caused by brah-based differences in crrpitive functioning that are fntrinsic tc:,the individual. Although it is undoubtedly true that there are m y types of learning problems uot covered by this dcfini.tion, if our intent is to answer questions about the naturt, cJf learni~zg.disezbilikies, our efforts should fncus on the kin& of problems identified in this defhitinn. In olher words, I believe that we should take this dcfinitim seriously as a specification of the kind of t e a m i ~ ~pr&Zems g we shoutd address in any discussim of teamiztg disabihties. Others are certainly free to discuss learnkg problcnts that are different than the type specifid in this definition, However, I would argue &at in doing so, they are changing the focus of the discussion from learning djsabilities to lenrnjng pr&lems ingeneral. Differences Between the Scientific and Educational Uses of the Definition Part of the prtiblem in deciding how to focus discussions m the nabre of learning disabilities arises from the fact that learning djsabilit.ies are both a phenomenon for scientific study and the basis for a sociaI/political/edu c a t i o d movement (Doris, 1993; Torgesen, 1991). 'The definition of learnhg disilbilities just presented co~ztainstheoretical statements about which there rnay be some disagreement, However, in order to validate the theoreticai elements in the definition of learning disabilities from a

scientific pt?rspecti\/e, all that is requiwd is to show that children with neurologically based, htrinsic learning disabilities do, in fact, exist. Even one case of a child with this type of disorder can seme as an "existence proof" for the etefhition and concept. Howevw, validation of the definition from the perspective of learning disabilities as a fjetd in speclial education (which can be considered, a socialipofitiralieducatimal movemat) is mu& mcrrtr difficult. This type of validation requires nothhzg less than evjdence that a s&r?@mntpwtiotz of children mrrently being served in learning-disabi.li.ties prcygrms fits the essmtiat elemmts of the definiticm. It is on this point that the theoreticaf assuqtimzs of the definition are m s t frequently anackt-rd. For exmple, Jim, Ysseldyke and his colleagues have reyorted on a program of research showing that school-idmtified le kg--dissabled (LD) childrczn c ent-iated f r m other kinds of poor lemcrs on the basis of their patterns ol' intellectual abilities vsseldy ke, Algozzisre, ,and McGue, 1982)*h his book. The kaming My~fipe,Gerald Cola (19237)has also mounted m extensive agack on the idea that most shoal-idelztified LD children have neurological problem as the basis of their le g diifirulties. fn fact, he is right in shwing that the evidtrnce for this idea is exceedingly weds. The central point here is trhat the concept of learning djsabilities, frnm a scientific p&t of view, is not threatened by our current inability to show that a majority of school-identifed LD children have intrinsic copitive limitations reswltjng kom ne~tmlogicalimpairment. Historically it is aXmost certainly true that the field of learning disabilitks as a sociallpditical movement has overge~zemlizedthe concept of learning disabilities in order to crcate improved educational opportwities for the largest possible number of children (Serif, 1986; 7br;gesen, 1993). Given thabschoolidentified LD children are a group defined by shifting political realities, local expediencies, and questionable psychometrics (Fletcher, Francis, Rourke, Shaywitz, &. Shaywitz, 1992; Ysseldyke, 1983), they are hardly a population about which we can hope to make coherent theo~ticalstatements"That is, we should not attempt to describe the nature of ""Xarning disabled" children as they arc identified by school systems because these children are not identified in a scimtifically c ~ rdefhitionally principled way. It may be interesting to develop models that explain Ihe process by which children are identified for services as lezlrning djsabled, but this would not be a theory about the nature of learning disabilities so much as a scxiological theory of the placement prclcess. Of course, if the definition of learning disa:bilities :I have been discussing does rtof apply to a significant proportion of chi1drc.n ctrrrently being served under special education law, this would seriously undermi.ne the field of fearning disabilities as a social/politicaI/educational movement. Children currently identified as learning disabled receive specjal sclcvices becarnse they qualil;y under a prrblic law tkat a s s w e s

PlrZonelogic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

109

they have an intrinsic "hmdicapf" preventing them from learning normally. If this turns out not to be Che case for most of the 5-45 percrent: of schoolchildren currently being served in learning-disabilities programs, then the importance of the concept as an instrument of public educational policy should dimhish.

Secondary Gharactexistim of Children with Learning Disabilities Ancrther point oE cclnhicm in thinking about the nature of learning disatogities arises from the fact that early failme in school has, itsell5, proiound effects on the child" cmtinuing development (Stanovich, 1986). That is, the early and consistent failure caused by a p r i m v or fntrinsic learnjng disorder frequently results in the development of secondary characteristics that hrtber interfere with the chitd" abilitJi to perform. successfulty in school, on the job, or in social siktations wisher & Torgesern, 1987; Schumalter, Deshlc?r, & Efljs, 1986).Although such chnracteristics as a limited knowledge base, low self-esteem, low motivation to learn, or confused, inactke, or nonstrategic teaming styte might be secondary consequences of early reading failure, for exannple, these characteristics could easily be primary causes of school dropout, delinquency, or even poor grades in middle school. The study of secolndary characteristics in fJDchildre11 is an area ripe for the development of systematic theories. For exampie, there is cmsidcrable ccmkoversy at present as to whether strategic, or metacopitive, inefficie~nciesin children with learning disabfities should be considered primary (Denkla, 1994; Meltzer, 1993; Swanson, 1388) or secondary (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1994; Torgesen, 4994; 'lbrgesen & Licht, 1983; Wong, 1991) characteristics. meories about secmdary characteristics promise to be as important as those focusixrg m primary characteristics in helpjng us to understand the development of individuals with learning disabilities. However, theories about the nature and de~relopment of secondary characteristics need to be clearXy differentiated from those that seek to idmtify primary, intrinsic learning disabilities, 'Theories about the developlnernt and effects of secondary characteristics on academic, social, or work performance will be helpful in understanding and wrking with learning-disabled individuals, but they do not a d d ~ s s the essential nature of learnkg disabilities as specified in the delinition.

Elements Required in a Complete Theory of the Nature af Learning Disabilities In keeping with the definition of learning disabilities that is most widefy accepted in thc field, statemnts about thc nature of karnkg disabihties

should contain at feast four elemmts. 'f'he first b e n t s h d d clearly indicate \zrhich type of learning disability, in terms of specific academic or behavioral outcorne, is to be explained. From the defhition, it is clear that it is powible to have muitipll. and equally valid theories about learning disabilit-ies. Ef-fortsto produce a sing)e, general description of the nature of fearning disabilities (that is specific enough to have educational, and diapostic implications) are imconsistcmt with the defitliticm, Since the defhition covers a heterogezzeous group of disorders of a general type, we should, expect that these will,be multiple expjanations of learni~tgdisabilities that are correct. Any &tempt to describe the naturc of lenrnjng disabilities must start with a clear specifiration of the academic or behavjoral o u t c m to be explairted in order that the remaining three elements of the descripticm may be coherent, Such dcscriptims as "reading difficulties," "learning problems," or "math disabilities" are not good starting points for useful t h e e ~ t i c a fexptanation because they might encompass several different types of learnlng disabilities. A useful exaxnple of the level of specilicity reyuircd can be found in the area of readhg, At a bask level, reading sMls can be divided into those invoZved in translating from visual to oral or semantic representations of hvords (word identification) and those involved in constructing the meaning of text (comprehension). Explamtions of the n a m e of these two types cJf reading problems may require quite differetnt theories. The point here is that the starting point for any descriptlion of the nature of leaming disabilities should be as specific as possible and take full adt.antage of all we ho~about i acadernic or other learning tasks in order to specify a coherfi?m.t.fmily o.E skitl deficits to be explajned (Brown & Campione, 1986). The next part of any explanation of the nature of a particular learning disabilit-y.&odd involve ident-ificationof tbe cogtnitive processing limitations that underlie the academic or developmental. learnbg failure, This psychological kvel of explanation is required by the definition because of the statement that irzfri~zsicprocessing hitations are the proximal cause of all tearnhg problems that can be categorized as learning disabilities. This level of explanation is also important because it pmwides a iogical link betweetz academic fajluxe, on the one hand, and brilin pathology, on the other-it helps piny0in.t: the phenomena to be explained by deeper layers of tbeczry involving brain-"oehilviclr retationships. It should be noted hen. that idezttfication of the cogtzitive processing limitations responsible for a givm academic disability does not, by itself,establlisln that the academic problem has its basis in bmin pati'zol~~q~. It is clearly possible to have cognitive processing defidts that are the results of experiential rather than intrir\sic factors. My point is simply that any complete account of ithe nabre of a learning disability must have, as one of its ele-

PlrZonelogic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

111

ments, a specificatilm of the psychlogical processing disability that underlies the academic failure. The deiinition next requil-es that any explanation of the nature oi learning disabilitries fnvofves ietentification of the locus or pattern of brain abnormality that is responsible for the intrinsic cognitive limitations that t in are the proximal cause of th disab3it.y. Much of the c u r ~ nexcitement the field of kaming disa2lilities derives fmm the development of new technologies that will make possible the collection of better data to test the hypothesis about abnomal brain hnctioning in these children (Shayconcept at witz, 1946). Mthough validation of the learni~~g-disabitit.ies this level is still relatively weak, a nunber of large projects are cursently under way to employ recenttp developed brah inraging technology to examine brain-behavior links in learning disabilities. The last elernent in a cmplete description of the nahare of a learning disability should address the etiology of the brain dysfunction that is part of the liescripticm, Here, it is important to Shw that the cltysfunction itself could not be caused by the Icarning failure it-is used to explain. For example, in expfaining specific kinds of reading disability by reference to brain-based differences, we must be sure that the failure to learn to read was not itself the cause of the apparent brah abnormality (Coles, 1987). Current Theories of Learning Disabilities That Cantain Appropriate Levels of Explanation It is r r y view that the theory of phonologicaily based ~ a d i n g disabilities (PRD) is currently the best developed, most coherent explanation of learning disabilities that a d d ~ s s e all s four elements previously outlir\ed. The fieory of nonverbal learning disabiliies deveioped by Byron Rourke 0989) is dso a eokrcnt theory of the nat-ure of a particttlar learning disability, but it does not conta& adequate description of the problem at the level of cognitive pmcessing operations (Torgesm, 4993). I will n w outline the nature of one specific leamhg disabiljty as proposed by the theory of phonologically based reading disabilities. The SpecijFic Academic O ~ t c o m e

The most salient academic diffirulty experienced by children with PRD invohes problems learning to understand and apply the alphabetic prjncipIe in translating between written and oral l m g u q e (Rruck, 1988; Rack, Sx~clding,& Olson, 1992; Siege), 1989; Siege1 & Faux, 1989; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). Chil$rm with this particular learnhg disability are slow to g r a v the prillciplc that letters bear a systematic relationship to the sounds fn words, fiey have difficulties learning correspm-

dences between ineiividual letters and the sounds (phonemes) they represent, and they have special problems in applying letter-som-rdknocvledge in "soundjng out" novel words. These diffjcultiesnot only interhe g also inwith early independence (and thus limit practice) in ~ a d i n but terferc with. the processes by which children gradudly acqztire the large vocabularies of '%sight words," which are the basis for the developent of readk~gfluency and which are criLical for good reading comprehension (Adams, 1990; Ehri, 1992; Share 8s Stanovich, 1995). Share and his colleagues (Share, 1995; Share & Jorrn., 1987; Share & Stanouich, 1995; see also Ehri, 1992) have resmtly p r e ~ n t e da c m h c i n g case h r the role of phonological, or atphabetic, reading skilXs as a critical foundation for the development of '"ight word" rreprcsentatims (researchers call these or&ographic representations because they represent the ietter patterns in words). n e s e orthographic representations alfow words to be recopized as whole units, which greatly speeds up the reading proces. Although a complete presentation of Share's modd is beyond the scope of this chapter, the basic idea is that child~tnwfio are able to utilize partial or complete phmological cues to supplement contextual information are much m m likely to arrive at a correct pronunciation of novel words in text than children who camot use phonological cues accurately. Since orthographic representations are acquircd by repeated associations of a worc3's correct pronunciation with its Visual representation, good atphabetic reading skills provide support: for atquisjtim of orthographic ~prcsentationsfrom the earliest stages of reading growth. Additionally, the prior atterzfion to individual letters that is involved in alphabetic decodjng provides a solid basis for xquisition or refineme~ntof orthographic representation for words, since good orthographic representations contain information about all the letters in a word and not just its shape or initial or final letters. .A current point of ambiguity in the theory of phonologically based the intrinsic processing problems uneierly~ a d i n disabilities g is *@%er ing difficulties in acquiring dph"betic reading skills are suMicient. to explain both the initial probfems in acquirhg accurate worb-reading skills and the lhgering problems in reading flwncy that are characteristic of mnny children with reading disabilities. %arc. and Stannvich"s 0995) mlysjs suggests that phonological readjng skills pmvide necessary, but not entirely sufficient, support for the development of good orthograpKc rclading skills. For example, a child may be able to xcurately identify words by using a combination of plonological reading skills and context, but i f these skills are not practiced in extensive exposum to print, the child will not develop a rich orthographic reading vocabulary. We also know that variation among children in orthographic reading skills cannot be fully explained empirically by a combination of g w r d verbal

PlrZonelogic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

113

abitity, phonologicral abilities, and print exposure (Barker, Torgesen, & Wagner, 1992; Cumhgham 8r Stanovich, 1991; Stmovich 8r Westf 1989). That is, when the influence of these factors on orthographic reading skills is controlled, children m d adults still show variation in the levels of their orlhographic &ills. Whereas it is quite possjble that this unexplained vari.abiliq in orthographic skill is due to mreliabte or incomplete measurement of phonological ~ a c l i n gskiffs or only partiat assessment of reading experie~~ce, it might aXso be due to an as-yet-unidentified information-processing ability that directly affects the rate at which orthographic representatim are formed (Bowers, Golden, Kennedy & Young? 1994)"If this latter possibility is the case, an intrinsic processing limitation that affects initiaf acquisition of alphabetic readlng skills would be d y a pareid explanation of word-level reacfing pmblems in children with rclading disabilities" I turn now to a discussion of these inkinsic processing limitations,

Iat&nsic Cognitive Lki$nitafio-rzsof Ghildrea with PRLI I'here is now a broad consensus that the prtiblems chitci~nexperience in acquiring alphabetic, or phonol~gical,reading skills are caused by variation among children '*in the phonological component of their natural capaciv for lanpage" "iberma Shankweiler, and Lilnerman, 1989, p. 1). The h m a n brain is specifically adapted for the processing of various kinds of linguistic ixrformation, One set of lin.guistk processing abilities a l l w s us to make m s e of the complex array cJf phonological information in speech. Children with PRD have a subtle dydunction of the phondogcral processing module that does not necessarily affect their ability to speak or to understanci speech but does interferer with their abil,ity to talee advantagt3 of the alphabetjc principle in reading. In their original thinking about reading disabilities, IsabeZfe Liberman and her colleagues began by asking the question, "What is required of the child in readhe, a tmguage but not in speaEng or listenhg to it?'"(Liberman et al., 1989, p. 4). Their answer was that the child must master the alphabetic principle: "This entaits an wareness of the internal phonolcrgical structure of words of the language, m awareness that must be more? expticit than is ever demanded in the ordinary course of listening and responding to speech. If this is so, it should folfw that beginning karners with a weahess inpho~~ological awareness would he at risk" (p, 5). Empirical =search on this hypothesis has indeed amply verified that chitdrtln Mtho expcrlrience difficdks acquiring alphabetic reading skills are, as a group, substmtial11y i m p a i ~ din theis performance on oral-tanguage tasks that assess awarcmesr;of the phonological structure of words (Bowey Cain & Ryan, 1992; Fietcher et al., 1994; Stanovich & Siegel, 4994;

Waper, Torgewn, & Rashotte, 1994). T w k used tcr assess pbcmological awarelzess do not involve letters; they assess a crihild's ability. to notice, thhk about, or manipulate the sounds in wards that arc presented orally. They involve operations such as indicating similarities or differences m o n g words on the basis of their first, last., or middle soumds; tetling how m n y different sounds a word contairrs; or blending separately presented somds to form a word. T7e difficulties that children with X,.IZD experielnce in processing phonologiral information have afso been shown in tasks that assess subtle foms of speech perception (Manis, i?ncBride,Seide&erg, Uni, & Custodio, 7,9931, the abitity to rapidly access phondogical rczpresentations for Ifamiliar verbal material (Wlf, 1991), and short-term retention of verbal material p ~ s e n t e deitrher aurally or visually ("Torgesen, 19%). Mea5urc.s of rapid-naming ability typicaliy repire children to name, as rapidly as possjble, series of approxilnatdy 36 to 50 digits, coloss, objects, or letters, Wasures of short-term verbal memory typically involve immediate recall of short sequences of digits or hvords. A more recently devetoped measurc of short-term verbal retent-ion involves immediate repetition of single nonwords that vary in length from two or three phonemes to 8-10 phonemes. In my own work, my colleagues and 1have shown that it is best to conceptuatize phonological awareness, rapid naming, and verbal short-term memory as correlated but distinct abilities (Wagner, To~esen,IJaughon, Simmons, & Rashotte, 1993). That is, the tasks used to assess each of these skills are not simply altemtiwe measwes of the same underly% abil,ity but rather appear to assess a family of related abifities that m y influence reading growth in slightly dlfierent ways, In fact, the evidence that these abilities are causally related to the g s m h of word-readi,ng skill is strongest for pfionotogical aware~zczss, next skongest for rapid. automatic-nadng ability, and weakest for phmological codU.~gin vvorking memory. Evidence that individuai differences in phonological awareness are causally related to the early growth of alphabetic read.in.g skills comes from (I) both standard and causal modeling studies of longitudinal-correlational data (Mann, 1993; Stanovieh, Cunnin@m, 8r: Cramer, 1984; Wawer, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994; Wtgner, Torgesen, Rashotte, Hecht, Barker, Burgess, Donahue, (t; Garon, 1997); (2) studies showing that older readhg-eiisabled c h i l d ~ n are morc ixnpaired in phonological, awarelzess than younger, normal readers matched to &m m reading level (Bowey, C&, & v a n , 1992); and (3) true experiments that show irngroved gmwfh in wod-level reading skills as a result of prjor training in phonological acvareness (Gunningham, 1990; Hatcher, Fiulme, & Ellis, 1994; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Torgesen, Morgan & Davis, 1992).

Phonologiuzlly Based Reading Disabilifies

115

The evidence to support rapid naming's role in early development of word-reading ability comes from two sources: (1) standard and causal modeling analyses of longitudinalcorrelational data (Felton & Brown, 1990; Wagner et al., 1994, in press; Wolf & Goodglass, 1986)and (2) differences between younger normal and older reading-disabled children matched for reading level (Bowers et al., 1994). Although individual differences in verbal short-term memory can predict subsequent reading development (Brady, 1991; Mann & Liberman, 1984), differences in performance on these tasks do not appear to explain variability in reading growth beyond that explained by phonological awareness and rapidnaming ability (Wagner et al., 1994; Wagner et al., 1997). However, most of the prominent case studies of phonological reading disability in both children and adults report limitations in verbal short-term memory as one of the prominent cognitive characteristics of these subjects (Torgesen, 1995).Clearly, further research is required to determine what unique role, if any problems in phonological coding in working memory play in causing difficulties acquiring alphabetic reading skills. The major controversy within the theory of phonologicallybased reading disabilities at the level of intrinsic cognitive limitations concerns the question of whether rapid automatic-naming tasks belong within the family of phonological measures or whether they measure different skills that influence aspects of reading growth other than the initial attainment of accuracy in using alphabetic reading strategies. For example, Patricia Bowers (Bowers et al., 1994) and Maryanne Wolf (Bowers & Wolf, 1993a; Wolf, 1991) and their colleagues have argued against viewing rapid automatic-naming tasks as primarily phonological in nature; instead they emphasize the visual and speed components of these tasks. They propose that rapid-naming tasks assess the operation of a "precise timing mechanism" that is important in the formation of orthographic codes for words. They hypothesize that "slow letter (or digit) naming speed may signal disruption of the automatic processes which support induction of orthographic patterns, which, in turn, result in quick word recognition" (Bowers & Wolf, 1993a, p. 70). The controversy about the nature and role of individual differences in rapid automatic-naming ability in causing reading difficulties is related to the controversy discussed earlier about whether difficulties in alphabetic reading skill are a sufficient explanation for problems establishing orthographic representations and moving into fluent reading. In fact, Bowers and Wolf (1993b) have proposed a "double deficit hypothesis" in which problems in phonological abilities (primarily assessed by difficulties performing phonological awareness tasks) interfere with acquisition of alphabetic reading strategies, and deficiencies in a "precise timing mechanism" (assessed by rapid automatic-naming tasks) cause difficul-

ties acquiring orthographic representaticms and becoming fluent readers. It is beyond the scope of this ehapter to detail the evidence on either side of this controversy (see Bowers et al., 1994; Bowers & WoIf, 199%; Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Burgess, & Hecht, 1997; and Torgem & Burgess, in press, for a more c o q l e t e discussion ol this controversy). However, if Bowers and Wolf are correct, combinations of deficiencies in p h o k g i c a i abifity and rapid-naming skill woutd produce three difkrent pdtems of reading disability: (1)childselr with orzly a phomological deficiency who might show initial delays in word-reading accuracy but them, with proper instmction and practice, eventualfy become accurate and fluent readers; (2) childrern with only rapid-naming problems who might show no delays in, early acquisition of accurate wosd-rcading strategies but would be timited in gmwth of fluent reading skills; and (3) children with both kinds of difficulties who would rernajn more severcly impaired in reading than children in either of the other two groups. While there can be little doubt that these diffemnt patterns of wad-=ading growth do exist (Spear-Swerling 8r Sternberg, 1994)' whether they result from a single family of cognitive limitations (phonologicaldisability) and are pmduced by different patterns of instmction, prartice, and motiv&im or whethcr they reflect Chc operation of two differew intrinsic cognitive limihtions is still open to question.

Locus of Brrat'rz Abttomaliq Responsible f i r PCzonulogi~mliyBased R e n d i v Dl'sabilifies As il-tdicated at the beginni,ng of the last section, the intrinsic cognitive limitations associated with PRD are attributed to isolated difficulties in one aspect of the uniquc?ly human capacity f o r language. Shaciies of normal brain function locate phonological processing opmations in the left temporal region of the brain (Damasio & Geschwind, 1984), Thus, this is a likely locus to 'took for abnormalities of brain development and function in individuals with PRD. In fact, three converging strands of research provide strong initial evidence that children with PRU do frequmtly show anomalies of development in this rt?gion of the brain. First, Al. Galaburda" microexaminatio~zsof the brains of diseased individuals with PRD consistently found disturbances of brain development in this rc-.giofi (Galaburda, 19KK). Eufthermort?, the particular anomalies ilientified in his work arise very early in develoipment and thus could not be the result, rather than the cause, of reading problems. .A second strand oi evidence comes from studies invd\iing measurement of region& cerebral blood flaw duriSLg readkg (Flowers, Wood, &r Naylor, 1991). This work has also verified that the teznporal region of the brain functions less e&cimtly in adults with PRU than in individuats with n m a l reaeiing ability. Finally; a study using nrrawetic resonance imaghg techology to ex-

PlrZonelogic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

117

amine a carefully sefected sampfe of childrtln with PRU provicies quite strong evidcnce of dif"c3rencesin brain structure along the ternporal plane between reading-disabled and normal children (Hynd., Semrud-Clikeman, Lorys, Noveq~,& Eliopulos, 1990).Much work remains to be d m e in verifying the specific nature of the brain dysfunction in children with PRD and in establishing its generality as a cause of phonological.disalrrilities in sipificant numbers of children. However, these three sources of information, taken together, provide important beginning validation ol the concept of PRU from a scientific perspective: Apparently childrcn and adults do exist wl-ro have alphabetic reading daculties associated with inefficiencies in processing phonologjcal information that are, in turn, associated with differences in brain structure and function in f i e left: kmporal region of the brain, At this point X would like to make a small digressioll to commer~ton two points that are often a source of contention in, describing the nature of learning disabilities. Frequently, validation for the concept of learning disabilities has been sought in evide~~ce that they exist outside the normal contixzraum of learsling abilifies. In the case of reading disabilities, evidmce that extxmely poor wmd-lewel reading skills (dyslexia) wcws wit-h greater fsaquency than is predicted by a normal distributiolz fumtion (i.e., a '"hurrrpf'of poor readers at the bottom of tbe normal distribution of readjng skill) is taken as evidence that readhg disabilities are caused by biological abnormlit-ies that do not occur in children within the normal distribution of reading skill (Rutter & Yule, 1975 ). Conversely, evidence that reaeiing disabilities exist on a continuum witbin the normal distribution (Shayitz, Escobar, S h a y i t z , Fletcher, 8t: Makugh, 1992) is sometimes taken as evidence that reading-disabled children are not biologically abnormd (see, for example, Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1,994). However, if phor~ological,lybased reading disabilities are caused by anomalies of development in the left temporal region of the brain, there are no compelling reasons to believe that these anomalies may not exist on a cmtinuum h m completely normixl (or even hypernormal) to severely innpaired. Thus just because individuals with PRD may occupy the l w end of a continuum of normally distributed phonological processing abilities does not mean that their problcms are not linked to brajn-based dlfierences in processing ability. Second, evidence that weak processing skills can be improved by specific instructional hterventions is sometimes taken as evidei~cethat they are not t h result of brain manomalies but rather resullt from lack of appropriate instmction and expcrlrience. However, such ewidence is quite irrelevant to Che issue of what caused the processing weakness in the first place. There is voluminous evihnce that copitive dysfunctions caused by verifiable, overt braill damage can be improved by specific instmctional and pracrice activity (Levi,n, Benton, & Crossman, 1,482). Similarty,

there is no a priori reason to believe that brain-based limitations in phonological processing ability camot be compensated for by appropriate hstruction and practice in reading.

EIiology of Phorralogically Rased R e a d i q t)isa bilifies At present, the best candidate for ""ultimate cause" of the Zlicrlogically based processing ineflicicneies responsi:ble for phonologicalfy based reading disabilities is genetic trmsmissim. nere is now considerable evidence that phonological disabftities are highly heritable (Olsm, Forsberg, & Wise, 1994). Alt.hough the heritability of phondogical disabilitks is well, established, there is still considerable controversy about the specific genetic locus (chromosomelocation) of the disorder (Fulker, Cardon, DeFries, Kilnberling, Pemnington, & Smith, 19991). Another important litnitation of the evidmce ixr this area is that genetic factors have not been litnked dircrctly to the kinds of brain anomalies studied by Gataburda and others but only to difficulties in pmcessillg phonological inbrmation. Sumt a a y Statetnent Ab0zl.t the Nature of Phonologically Based Readilzg Disabilities To summarize the material in the p ~ c e d i n gsections, phonologicatiy based wading disabitities are primarily manifested at the level of overt readhg ability by difficulties acquiring alphahetic or phonetic reading strategies. The intrinsic cogniti\le limitation that causes these difficdties in~rolvesisrefficiel~ciesin processi~~g phonological inforination that, in turn, are caused by anomalies of brain development in the left temporal of the brain. 'The most likely cause of the brain anomalies associ~gion ated wi& phonalogically based reading disitbilities is genetic transmission, This s i v l e summary makes clear that although itis possible to describe an academic or psychologicat perspective on learning disabilities and to cont-rast them with a medical or bidogicd pcsspective, a connplete description of the nature of learnixrg disabilitjes is a multidisciplinary effort. Because of the liifferent levels of description and explanation required by the definition of learning disabilities, statenteints about the natare of learning disabilities from the perspective of a single djsciplilre (academicr, psychohtgicalt, or biological) must necessarily be incomplete.

Approaches to the Diagnosis of: Phonofogically Based Reading Disabilities On the surface, the diagnostic Fnrplications of the theory of phonofogicdly based reading disabilities are rtttatively straightforward. 'f'he most

PlrZonologic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

119

=liable indicator of this type of learning disability is difficutv in rapidly and accurately reading pseudowords (Bruck, 19990; Share 8r Stanovich, 1995; Siegel, 1989). En other words, the most important first-level marker of this type of learnillg disordetr involves unusually delayed development of aiphabetic reading skills. As ixnplied by the Cheory, further indications of the disorder may be obtahed by assessment of its comitive markers, These markers can be assessed by tasks that involve pmcessing the phondogical features of language, At present, the tvcro most reliable indicators of reading-related phonological, processing difficulties are measures of phonological awareness m d rapid automatic naming of familiar verbal material. Evidrznce from longitudinal-predictive studjes (Meyer, m o d , Hunt, CYL Felton, 1995; Nper et al., 1994; Waper et al., 1997 indicates that assessment of both of these variables adds useful diagno&ticl informtion about Che severity of the disorder beyond that- obtained by assessment of word-level reading skills, particularly during early elementary school. For example, a m g cl-zildren vvho are eyually innpai~din word-decoding sMls in first grade, perhmance on phonological awareness and, rapid automatic naming tasks can provide iz7formation about which children artr mcrm likely to remain severe@impaired and which ehil,dren are likely to improve their reading satus. By the fater grades in elementasy school, individual differences in phonological processing skill art. almost e n t i ~ l y reflwted in measures of wrd-lwel readof phonological processing abiljty ing abilit.5 so mnreading mcas~~res may not add significant diagnostic information (Torgesen, Wgner, Rashotte, Burgess, & :Hecht, 1497). I-lowever, in individual cases, additional assessme~~i: of the coglnitive markers of PRD may contribute to an assessment of the severity or breadth of the disorder. If we were doing diagnosis Wjthin the laboratory or within a large medicai cent-er, the next level of masurememt in this theoretically drive11 process wuZd iXlvolve assessment at the neurobiological level. We would look for either structural or functional anomalies in the brain. At a prxtical level inthe schools, however, it is not pssible to extend routine diagnostic activities to this third level. This lack of assesmmt capa:bilities at the neurobiologicd level introduces ambiguities in the identification of "pure'kases of childrcn with PRD Chat carnot: be easi%yresolved within school settings. For example, it is obvious that a child can have poorly developed alphnbetic ~ a d i n gskills for a number ol reasons. Instruction can clearly make a difference. From one midsized school district that has not consistently emphasized early, explicit instruction in alphabetic reading skills, my colleagues m d I have obtairred data (Torgesen 8r Burgess, in press) indicatixrg that 40 percent of a sample of iappmxhately 200 M&-grade children achieved scores that were two or more grade levels below their

current grade placement on the Word Attack subkst of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (Woodcock, 1987).The Word Attack subtest is a direct measure of children" ability to apply ""phonics" h o w l edge (letter-sound corrcsspondences, phonew-blending skills) to rczading novel words. It is also probablc that an individual chi1d"s xquisition of alphabetic readjng skills can be affected by a broad variety of other factors that can influence gmwth in any acaden-tic skill, such as motivatio1.1, regularity of attendance at school, or home-based support for reading practice. The problem with using assessment of the cognitive markers of phonological awareness and rapid automatic-naming skill to "confirdh diagnosis of PRD is that they are, themselves, influenced by growth and.instruction in alphabetic ~ a d i n f skills. : That is, causal retationshfps between word-lewl reading skills and phonological skills are reciprocal (Ehri, Wilce, ct; Taylor, 1987; Morais, Aiegria, 8r Conknt, 1987; Perfetti, Beck, Bell, & fighes, 1987; Waper, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 4994). Beginning levels of phonhgical skiis exert a causal infIuence on ease of acquiring alphabetic reading skills, but in turn, growth in alphabetic reading skifls influences subsequent grovvth of phonological skills. Thus a child who perform poorly on alphabetic rcading skilfs in third grade because of lack of instruction or motivation is likely to also show deficient performance on measures of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming* 'The "'phonologicd processing diff culties""of this child may not be the result of neurological anomalies in the left t a p o r a l region of the brain but rather might be caused by a lack of opportunity to learn alphabetic reading skills. The fact that academic deficits can have multiple causes reduces the utility of a multilevel descriptim of the nature of the learniq disability for school-based diagnosis if: we ,?re not able to assess ail the mrkers for the disability. However, for educational purposes, it may not matter whether a child's difficulties in alphabetic reading development are caused by netrrological or other factors. We do have some beginning evidence that degree of impairment in phonological processing is related to rate of respotzse to instruction in alphabetic reading skills (Torgesen & Elavis, 19%; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1996). Ho\vever, this does not mean that children with '"pure'' PRD q u i r e a qualitatjvely dif-ferent instructional fntervention than those with problems fn this area arisfng from hstrudional or motivational factors" We should remember at this point that the definit.im of learning disabilities sp~ificallyexcludes tearning problems that are the rczsulit of lack these factors of opportumit.ies or lack of motivation to learn. Of COLI~SC, are very difficult to assess in practical dkgnostic work. The issue of lack of appropriate instmction can be at least partially dealt with by using 10-

PlrZonologic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

121

cal norms when alphabetic and phonological skills are assessed. Although cerhin kinds of inslructionalprograms can increase the incidence of poor wosd-level reading skills within a school or district, children with severcr. biologicalZy based PRD &odd be rekrfiuefy more impaired in atphabetic reading skills and phonological processhg hility than their peers, A final issue that should be discussed in this sec-tion involves the role that assesslnent of generd intefledual abi%ityor IQ, should play in the diagnosis of phonologiraliy based reading disabjlities. Historicalfy a core theoretical assumption of the concept of specific mading disabilities is whose rcading ability is cliscrepant that the rcadir?g problems of c h i l d ~ n from their level of general intelligence are qualitatiwly different than the ~ a d i n gdifficulties cJf children whose poor ~ a d i n gskills are consistent with their level of gencral intelligence (Kavale & Forness, 1985; Stanovich, 1331; Targesen, 1991). If we rcstrict our focus to alphabetic ~ a d i n gskitls, rczcmt researtlh has shoMin that these assumptions &out discrepant and nondiscrepant reading disabilities are incorrect. 'The alphabetic reading problems of poor readers who have low gmeral intelfitjence appem to have the same proxirnal cause and the same etidogical mats as those of chjtdren wfiose jlltelligence is higher than Chcis wading skill (Fletcher et al., 1992; Fletcher et al., 1994; Penningtm, Gilger, Olson, & DeFries, 1992; Stmovich & Siegel, 1994). Furthermore, the essential elements of instruction for preve~~tion and remedjation of both types of reading pTOblem appear to be the s m e (Tuel, 1996; Torgesen & Hecht, 1996). These findings suggest that use of the term ""ponologically based reading disabilities" should not be restricted to chi.ldren whose reading level is discrepant from their general intelligence. Difficulties processing phonological inf-ormdion can co-occur with low general intelligence and they, not low IQ, should be cmsibered the proxbal cause of a1pha:beti.c reading difficulties. However, we should also clearly recognize that the performnces o( discrepant and nondjscrepant ehildvcn will differ in ixnportant ways regarding c w i t i v e skills that lie outside the word recognition, or phonological, module (Hlis & Large, 1987; Stamvich Sr Siegel, 1994). Because the general intellige~~ce of discrepnt childrrrn is higher than that of nondiscrepant cbildren and because general verbal inteliitjence is strongly rctlated to ~ a d i n g comp~hmsion.,the former group is likely to havc higher reading cornprrzhension levels orlce the basic dcfiejt in alphabetic rcading skill is =mediated. In other words, childmn with higher general verbal skills are likely tcr have higller readhg comprehension levels give11 the same level of word-reading ability. 'This argument implies that discrepant and nondiscrclpant children do have a different prognosis with rczgarcl to the ultimate level of ~ a d i n skilt g they are tikety

to attain, given equivalent instruction. It also implies that apart from instruction to overcome Chc core problem of poor alphabetic reading ski&, nondlscrepant children may require additional intensive instruction to acquire the gmeral verbal howlecfge that supports good reading cornprehemsion. Une of the major advantages of a sound, multilevel theoq of phonohtgical2y based rr-?adU.~g dishilities is that it provides a way to diapose the disability before children experience failure in learning to read. Clearly, one Fmportant applicat-ion of the theory of phonologically based ~ a d i n gdisabilities involves the early identification of these disabili.ties using nomadislg measures of phrtnological skills (Tctrgesetn 6r; Burgess, in pmss). If we are able to develop these measurcs into efficient pmdictive indices, and if we arc. aiso able to devebp effective preventive intervent.ims for the children thcy identify as phonologically disabled, the prevcmtion of early failure in s c h o ~cl d d be one of the most positive outcomes of atl the wmk that has contributed to the development of sound theory in this area.

Irzstmetio~alZ ~ f e m e n t i ofor ~ s Z~dividuaEswitk Phonological4 Based Rewdi~zgDisabilities Both our current untferstanding of the nomal pattern of reading growth (early attainment of alphabetic reading sElls is critieai) and our understanding of the most c o m m cognj.tive Zinnitations of children with =ading etisabilities (they have special difficulties acquiring alphabetic reading s:[cills because of phonological procem"ing weaknesses) creates a dilemma of sorts for those who are interested in preventing or remediating reading disabilities. :Instruction to build alphabetic reading skills, which are seen as essential h normal reading growth, is hstruction directed toward the primary cognj.tive/linguistic weakness of m s t children with severe ~ a d i n gdisabili.ties. There is a strong cclmponent of i~~structional theory in the area of learning disabilities (Warnmill & Bartel, 1995; Mercer & Mercer, 1993) that emphasizes teaching to children's strengths rather than their weah~esses.Thus we sometknes see recommendations to teach reading-disilbled children using "sight word"" or "visudly based" approaches that do not overly stress limited phonological abjlities. In fact, until fairly recent-ly, research m d casestudy i,nformat-ionabout children with PRD tended to emphasize how extremely difficult it is to teach generdized phonetic reading skills to children with these h d s of disabilities (Lovett, Warren-(l:haplin,Ransby, & &orden,19%; IJyonr19Kti; Snowling & Hulme, 1989). Snowlirtg and F-lulsne, for a m p l e , reported the case of a yam8 man with PRP) who ~ceiwedfour years of Instruction

PlrZonelogic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

123

in a private ~ s i d m t i aschool l specializing in teaching dyslexic children. The boy's instrudio~~al regime was eclectic but focused on "multi-sensory training in the use of English spellixlg patterns and conventions, i.e. on the explicit tearhfng of phonemeigraphme correspondmces'" (p. S@). Comparisons of the young man's read.ing skill before and &er this four years of instruction showed that he had made rcasonlable gains in passage comprehension and ability to read familiar words but afmtrst no gain in alphabetic reading skills. AltE7ough f.te showed about one mnth's gain in reading cmprehension for each month of instruction, his reading-cclmprehensim skills remained substantialty below those expected .from his general level ol intelligence. In contrast to these earlier results, more recent work by Lovett and her associates (Lovett, Borden, Deluca, Larerenza, Benson, & Brackstone, 1994) and by others (Alexander,Andersell, Heilman, Voeller, & Torgesen, 1991; Brown & Felton, 1990; Wise & Olsen, 1995; Wilson, 1995) has reported significant success in buirding generalized alphabetic reading skills in children with phonologically based reading djsabilities..In two ongoing studies I and cdcagues are involved in (Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Alexander, (4r Conway, 1997), we are also obtaining very encouraging results regardin: the rjibilty of children with JI"RD to acquire iunctional alphabetic reading skills when exposed to the right instructional conditions. In one of our studies, we are working with chjtdren aged 8-10 who have already been identified by the public school system as leming disabled. These childrm were initiatly nominated by their teachers as having the gxatest Micu,lties acquiring word-level wading s u s ; we thcn verified their difficulties in alphabetk reading and phonological awareness through a series of tests of our own. C)ne of the m r e unuszxal things about this study is the htensity of the instruction provided to the childm. Students are seen indjvidualiy in 50rninute sessions, five days a week for about eight weeks, for a total of about 67 hours of instruction. Following the intensive instruction, students are seen in their learning-disabilities classroom. by the project teacher for one hour a week for eight weeks. The p u r p o ~ of this followup hstructim is to help the children genc;?ra:lizetheir newly developed reading skills to the kinds of assig ents they receive h the classroom, The children are being randomly assigned to two d i f f e n t instructional conditims. AlIhough each of the programs contains relatively expticit instruction in "phclTlj.cs," this instruction is provided in two different ways. The AueSitory Discrimination in Depth (ADD) Program (fi,indamsad 8s Z,indaunoad, 1984) stimulates phanolagical awarelless by helping childzn discover the articulatory positions and movements associated with the diaferent phonemes in the English tanpage. For exam-

ple, they learn to label the sounds ~pmsentedby the letters ""p" and "b'" as l@ papers because of the way the lips pop open and air pops out wfien they are pronounced. The sounds represented by ""thand ""d" are labeled t i tlzppers ~ because of the way the tip of the tongue taps agai~~st the moE of the mouth when they are pronoulzced. AAer discovering the articulatory gestures associated with each phoneme students are able to "feel"' the identity, order, and number of sounds in words as well as hear them. They c m also identily the phonemes in w r d s by observing their m o d s in a mirror as they pronomce the word, This curriculum also provides explicit instmction in letter-sound correspondmces along with extensive instruction and practice in Che applicatim of thcse correspondcrnces to decoding words, both out of context and within meaningful text. This approach is &signed to provide a level of instruction and experience in phonological processing of words that is m c h deeper than most reading instmctianal methods. The other agproach, which we call ernbedded phonics (EP), provides less intensive but still systematic pho-lics trajning in the context of meaningful experiences in reading and writing text. This approach was adapted from a method that has bem employed successfully in a large clinical practice in Tallahassee, Florida, Both approaches aehowledge that the children being instructed have speciaf dtifficuhies processing phmdogical information. However, the ADD program attempts to directly attack these difficulties through an intensive prograrn of oral and phonological awareness training, whereas the EP program seeks to reduce the demands on these skills by using an approach to phonics instruction that does not place as much emphasis on hlf. phonological decodir\g but rather emphasizes the early integration of partial phonological decodings with context clues to identify unknown words. The El? method also focusczs on direct instruction in a core sight-wctsd vocabulary to support fluent rezlding in the texts that children read during their instructional sessions. We now have immediate post-test data on 59 children and one-year iollow-up data on 47 students. R e most striking feature of the results so far is the large gains that children in both instructionai conditions are maki.ng in the accuracy of their generalized alphabetic reading &ills. Children in both groups have moved from substantially below average (mom than two stantfard deviations) in performance on rwasures of 4phabetic reading UP into the average range. This change represents from about one and.a half (EP group) to two W U group) years of growth h this skill over tbe 67 hours of instwctim. The?children have also experienced substmtial growth in their ability to recognize real words m d to comprehend what they read, although these cJnanges have not been as dramatic as those for alphabetic reading skiffs. Follow-up testing one

PlrZonologic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

125

year after the conclusion sf ithe intervention indicates that almost all of the children are conthuing to make gains in word-level reading skills relative to the performance of average children. In our prc.veMicm study, we have pprovided individual ktoring in reading to children at risk for FRD fm the second semester oE fcindergartm through the end of second grade. This study also contrasted thc ADD method with the EP condition a d with another condition in which chifdrctn were &redly supported by our tutors in the reading assignments they received in thejr regular classes, At the end of second, gradc, children receiving instruction in the AI33 program performed in the avaage range on measllres of word-level read.ing skifls (includi.ng alpabetic reading ability) and substantially ahead of children in the o t h r groups. The most ~ p r o p r i a t econclusion from recent instructional research with children who havc phonologically based ~ a d i n g &sa:bilities is that it is clearly possible to have a substantial impact on the growth of their alphabetic rc-rading skills if the proper instructional conditions are in place. ?'"hest. conditio~nsappear to i n v h e instruction that is more explicib, mort. intensive, and more s~ipportiuethan that which is usuafly offercd in most public and private schocrl settings. It is m r e cwylicitin that it makes fewer assunptims about preaisting skills or children's abilities to make inferences about graphem-phoneme ~guiaritieson their own. For example, most successful programs have involved some form, of direct: instruction &signed to stimulate children's awareness of the phonological segments in words. Although some form of instruc"cicmin phonologiral akvarc.ness characterizes all successful programs, there has been sdstantial varia,biliity in the way this instruction was provided, Several sbdks, for example, have employed teehiques from the Auditory Discrimi,nation in Depth Program (Lindamood 8r t,indanood, 1984), which involves extensive instruction to help children discover and learn the articulatory gestures associated with each phmeme. Although children quickly make the transition inlo wrkin& with fet;lers, they do spend considerable t h e learnixrg lat7els for sounds that h d p to make the phoneme m m c o n c ~ t ea d provide a way to think about the phonemes in hvords in terms of the way t h y feel in addition to the way they sound. Other successful,programs (Lovitt et al., 1994; Brown & Felton, 1990; Witson, 49")5) have employed techniques for stimulating pbonological awareness that attempt to make individual sounds in words more apparent, such as lengthening the duration of sounds inwords, asking children to tap tbeir fb~gerstogether for each sound they hear in a worci, or explicitly teaehjng c M d m techniques for blerndhg sounds togethcr to make words. Et is also clear that phonological awareness can be stimulated through writing and speliing activities that are embedded within the

context of reading and spetting instrutltion (Clay, 4985; Cunningham, 1490; Ehri, 1989). At present, there is no research available to indicate whether any of these techniques are more effective than others or if they migtlt be differentially effectiwe for children with differing degrees of irnpairment inphonological processhg ability A second way in which successfuL instruction lfor children with PRD must be explicit involves direct instruction in letter-sound ccrrrespcmstrategies for using these correspondences to decode dences and i1~ words while reading text, Expficit irtstmction and practice in these skills is characteristic of all programs fiat have pmduced substantial growth in alphabetic reading skills in chi1drc.n MIith PICU.fn a h e t test of t k utitity of this type of instruction, Iverson and Tunmer (1993) added explicjt training in phmological decoding to the popular Rearling Recovery Progsam (Clay 19791, which has tradilionalfy placed less elnphasis on instruction and practice in these skills, In their carefully contrdled. study, they found that a small amount of explicit instruction in phonjcs increased the efficiency of the Reading Recovery Frogram by approximately 25 pexent. In addition to being more explicit, effective reading instmction for children with PIZU must be more itzfe~zsi'ueChm regular classroom instruction, Increased intensity involves more teacher-student hstmctianal interactions, or reinfo~edlearning trials, per unit of time. Greater intensity of instructio~~ is required because the increased explki-t-nessof instruction for children with PRD requires that mnre things be taugfnt directly by the teacher. Unless beginning mading instruction for children with PLCL) is more intensive for lasts ggnificantly longer) than normal instruction, these children will necessarily lag significantly behind their peers in. ~ a d i n growth. g Substantialfy fncreased, fntensiq of instmction seems especially csitical in remedial settings, where chiXdre~nbegitz the instructinn already significantly behind their peers, The data in Figure 5.1 illustrate the dramatic alteratim in grow% mte for basic word-reading skills that was k i n g achievcd as a result of the illtensive intervention model in our current remediation study (Tosgesen, Waper, Rashotte, Burgess, & :Elecht, 1997). Raw scorns on measures of alpha:betic reading (Word Attack) and real-word readirzg (Word Idmtification) from the Mloodcock Readjng Mastery Test-Revised (Mioodcock, 4987) arc. plotted as a fmctictn of the child's age in months. 'The steep portion of the graph corresponds to o w eighl-week intensive intervention pc.riod. The curves at the top of the graph represent normal growth on these two memures taken from fie national standardization sample (bp line) and also from a school district in the SouCheast that represents a more appropriate local comparison group of average studmts. We assumed,a s h ilar starting pOint b r all shtdentri m &me rwasures at six years of age. It

PlrZonologic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

75

13'7

99

127

111

123

135

147

Age in Months

I

Word ldentifiesltioxl

50

8

m 3

2

4,

30 20

Embedded Phonics

m----

10

75

87

99

Ill

123

135

147

Age in Months FIGURE 5.2 Growth Rates far VVard-Level Reading Skills Prior To and During In.tensive Reading Interventions

is ubvious from this figure that both interventions (ADD and EP) have been successhl in dramatically altering the course of growth in basic word-readhg skills for the students as a whole. Fur;t-hermore,it: is apparent h r n the one-year follow-up results that the chiIdren are able to maintain these drama& gains one year after the intervention was cancluded,

A third way in which ine;tmcticmfor chjldren with PEP>must be modified in order to be sllccessful invnlves the level of support provided withh the instructional interactions. At least two knds of special suppcnt are ~ y u i r e d First, . because acquiring wd-lewel wadkg skills is more difficult for t.hildrcn with PRD than others, they require more el.rt.0tioanl support in the form of encouragemnt, positiw feedback, and.enthusiasm from the teacher in order to maintain their motivation to learn. %concl, instructional interactio~~s must be more supportive in the sellse that they involve carefully scafolded interactions with the child. Tn a recent investigation of the chararteristics of effecei\ie reading tutors, Juel 0996) idcntilied the nurnber of scaffdded interac.lionsduring each teacbing session as one of the critical variables predicting differences in effectiveness across tutors. A scaffolded interaction is one in which the teacher enables the stude11.t:to complete a task (i.e., read a word) by directhg the student's attmtion to a key piece of information or break@ up the task into smatler, easier-to-manage ones. I'he goal of these fnteractions is to h so the child can go through the processing provide just e ~ ~ o u gsupport steps necessary to find the right answer. Wth enough practice, the chjld becomes ahie to go t h r o w tbe steps indepedently. Juel's findillg about the importance of careluily scafiolded instructional intemctions is consis-. tent with the emphasis on these types of interactions in the teachers' manuals that accompany two instructional programs shown to be effective with children with PRD (Lindarnood t3t: ZJindamoodf1984; Wilson, 1988). It is clear that we arc. making pmgwss in understand% the instwctional conditions Chat need to be in place for c h i l d ~ nwjth Palll to develop functional afphabetjc reading skills; it is also apparclnt that we still have much to learn. fichard Olson and his colleagues have pointed out fC)lsor?,Wise, Johnson, Rr Ringf in press) that- the large gains i,n alphabetic reading skills reported in many studies have frequently not been accompanied by similarly large gains in real-worcl reaefing ability (both accuracy and fluency) and passage comprehension. Researchers often rationalize these findings by suggesting that additional time will be necessary for child~n"n w y acquired alphabetic rt?a$.ing skifls to prociuce corresponding gains in real-word k~owtedge,a hypothesis that is cmsi.stent with Share and Stanwich%(1995) self-teacbirtg the09 of rcading acquisition. However, in the only test of this hypothesis crrrrently available fC)lsenet al., in prtlss), it was not supprted, That is, a group of children with PRD who showed greater gains in phonological awareness and alphabetic ~ a d i n gskills as a result of careful instruction of the type described did uot show greater gains in sl,lbsequelnt real-word rcf.adj.ng abiXity than another group who had received less phonologically based instmction.

PlrZonologic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

129

One clbvious possibility that needs to be explowd in further research is that our initial attempts ta train children with PRD in alphabetic reading skills have lead to substantial increases in accuracy, but the trainjng has not been sufficient to produce phonological processing that is sufficiently .fast, wtosnatic, and flexible to be routinely used whilc reading text. In other words, allfnough children may be able to consciuusly apply alphabetic reading skiZls when asked tc:,do so on a test, if these skilfs art? not fluent they may not be routhely applied when childre11 read text. Thus even though alpJnabetic reading skills have improved through instruction, new@ =mediated skills may not: contribute to reading growth in PRD children the same way they do in childre11 who learn to read normally. This line of reasoning suggests that futurcl studies should moni.tor the fluency and flexibility of application of dphabetic reading skills as well as accuracy on stmdardized tests. It also s~~ggests that once good levels of accuracy are reached, additional training may need to focus specific* m increasing the fluency of processing as weI1 as on flexible application of skills &ring the processing of text. It is also possible, of cowse, that factors other than phonological deficits limit the growth of word-reading skills im many c h i l k n . X n addition to the pssibi1it.y that some children may have a specific additional det'icit in rapid automatir-naming ability that d i ~ c t l yaffects t h i r abiliv to form orthcrgraphic ~prcsentations(Bowers et al., 1994), such things as size of vocabulary (I'laut, McClelland, Seidenbcrg, & Patterson, 1,496), amount of print exposure (Stanovich, 1993),and.effective use of context (Tmmer & Chapman, 19%) can also influence the growth of ~ a l - w o r d rclading ability. Particularly in the case of rclrneciial work with children who have already undergone a period of failure in reading growth, these other factors may also need to be a d d ~ s s e dbefore increases in alphabetic reading ability can be fully utjiized to support continued reading growth in children with PRU,

References Adarns, M.J. (1990). B e g i ~ ~ ~ fa i n read: g Tdfinkillg and learnz'lzfpabout prr'fzt. Carnbridge, MA: MIT Press. Alaander, A., Anderson, H., f-leilman, P.C., Va-eller,K.S., & Targesen, J.K. (1991). Phonofogical awareness tra t nlng and remediation of analytic decoding deficits in a group of severe dyslexics,Alzlzals of Dyslexl'n, 41,19>206. Barker, TA., Tc>rgesen,].K., & Wagner, R.K. (1992). The role of orthographic processing skills on five different reading tasks. Reeitdiv Researclz Qunrferly! 27, 3%-345 Barrcm, R,W. (1986).Word recopition in early reading: A review of the dired and indirect access hy yothesis. Cognifion, 24,93--11 9.

Bowers, KG., Golden, I., Kennedy, A,, & Uurmg, A. (1994) Limits upon orthographic knowledge due to processes indexed by naming speed. In V.W. Berniinger (Ed .). Tlte z~arietiesof artlzographk kfzozoledge 1: Tlz~oretl'calaszd developlrzental issues (pp- 17%2115). Bordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Bcjwers, PG., (4r Wc>Xf, M. (1993a). Theoretical links beween naming speed, precise timing mechanisms and orthogaphie skill in dyslexia. Reading and Writlournnl, 5,f;g-85. ing: An 1n!nlc?rdj~cipjz'~nF~ Bowers, P. C,, &r Wolf! M. (1993b). A dazrble-deficit Irypoftiesisfor dezlel~~prneutal readirzg disorders. Paper prexnted to meetings of the Society far Research in Child Development, March 1993, MW Orleans. B~wey,J.A., Cain, M.T., & b a n , S.M. (19432). A reading-level design study of phonological skills underlying fourth-grade children's word reading difficulties. Clzr'ld Uetlerfopment,63,999-1011. Bradey, S.A. (1991). The role of working memory in reading disabi1i.t-y.In S.A. Bradey & D.P. Shankweiler (Eds.). Phonological P~ocessr;lsin Literacy (pp. 129-152). Hillsdale, NJ: I,awrence Erfbaum. Brown, A.L., & Campione, J,C, (4986). Psychological theory and the study of learning disabilities. A tnericat.2 Itzsyclitologl'st,34,1059-1068, Brown, I,S,, & Felton, R.H. (1998). Effects of instruction on beginning reading skills in children at risk f a r reading disability. Readizzg and Mrriting: An Xnterdi'scifllirznry Journal, 2, 2.23-241 . Bruck, M, (1988).The word recognition and spelling of dyslexic children. Readilfg Rescarcli Qzkarterly, 23, 514 9 . Bruck, M. (1990). Wc>rd-recognitionskills of adults with childhc~oddiagnoses of ci ysiexia. Dez~elopmenlal Psyclsorfagy,26,439-454. Clay, M.M. (1979). Rending: Tlze pafferrting of complex belzauii~r.Auckland, New Zeabnd: Heinernam. Clay, M.M. (1985). Tlze early detrctiorz of rmdittg dzfictalties. Pctrtsm-ctth,NPI: Heinemann. Coles, G.S. (198'7). The le~rnz'ngrrlystiqzi~:A critiml look nC "le~rningdisabilities." New York: Pantheon. Cunningham, A.E. (19CNI). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. jotlmal of Experimerttal Cfzild Psyclu710gyI50,42%444. Cunningham, A.E., (4r Stano>vich,K.E. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in children: Assc>ciationswith vc)cabulary general howledge, and spelling. foz-lrrzal of Edzdmtzirnal Psyelzolog,5~,83,264-274. Darnasict, A.R., & Geschwind, N.(1984). The neural basis of Language. Annrral Reviezo of Neuroscienees, 7, 7,127-147. Denkla, M. (1994). Measurement of executive function. In G. Reid Zyort (Ed.), Fratrzes of Reference for thc Assc7ss1~tenf of Lensni~zgDisabilities: New Kezus on Measzi~nzenfIssraes ( p p . 143-1 62). Baltimore, M D Brookes. Drtris, J.L, (1993). Defining learning disabilities: A histclry cjf the search for ccmsensus. In R. Lyon, D. Gray, N. Krasnegor; and J. Kavenagh (Eds.), Better undersln~zditzglearning dis~bifilics: Perspectiws orz classFcliflio~z,id'rtzt$ca tion, and assesslrzelzt and their implicafiorlsfor education and policy. BaltimorepMD: Brookes, Ehri, L.C. (1989). The development of spelling howledge and its role in reading acquisitian and reading disability. foarrzal oflearrzi~tgDisabilities, 22,356-365.

Phonologic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

132

Ehri, L.C. (1992). Kecmceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recc>ding.In P.B. Gough, L.G. Ehri, & R. Triernan (Eds.), Readirzg Acquisition (pp. 107-143). Hillsdale, MJ: Erlbaum. Ehri, L.C., Wilce, L., &r Taylor, B,B. (1987. Children" categnrizatian of short vowels in words and the influence of spellings. Merrill-P~zlmerQtirarferIy, 33, 39-21. Ellis, N., & Large, B, (1Cd87). The development of reading: As you seek so shall you find, British jour~zralof^Psyc.hott7gyd78, 4-28. Felton, R,, & Brown, I.S. (1890). Phonological procsses as predictors of specific reading skills in chitdren at risk far reading farlure. Rendifzg and Writizzg:An Tnterdiscir~linckqfozlma2,2,39-59. Fletchel; J.M,, Franeis, D,j,, Rorarkef B.P., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A, ((191)2), The validity of discrepaney-based definitions of wading disabilities. lour~zniof Lmrnir-zg Disabilities, 25, 555-561 . Fletcher, j,M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweileu; D.P.' Katz, L., Liberman, I.Y., Stuebing, K.K., Francist D.J., Fowler, A,E., & Shaywitz, B.A, (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Cornparitsans of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Jozrmal of Educational Psycftology, 86,6-23. Flowers, L., Wood, EB,, gL Nayfor, C.E. (1991). R e ~ o n acerebral l blood Row corre48, lates of language processes in reading disabilities. Arclzivcs of N~ztroLogy~ 637443. Fulker, D.W, Cardon, L.R., DeFries, J.C., Kirnberting, WJ., Pennington, B.F., (4r Smith, S.D. (1991). Multiiple regession analysis of sib pair data on reading to d An Interdiscipjt7Ii~zla~y lourrlal, 3, detect quantitative trait laci. Readit18a ~ Writifzg: 29-313, Galaburda, A.M. (1988). The pathagenesis of childhood dyslexia. In F.Plum (Ed.), La~gunge,Co~rtmunimticllz,and the Brain (pp. 127-1 37). Mew York: Raven Press. Hammill, D.D, (1990). On defining learning disabilities: An emerging consensus. lour~zalof kgrr-zirtg D-if;n&ililr'esr 23,74434. Hammill, D.D., (4r BarteX, N.R. (1995). Students wt'flzl e a m i q and betmzlior problenfs. (6th Edition). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Hatchel; P., Hulme, C,, & ELlis, A,We(1994).Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The ph~nological 65,4147. linkage hypothesis. 611-i2d I)evel[~pmenl, f-lynd, G.W., Sernrud-CXikeman, M., Lorys, A.R., Novey, E.S., CZr Eliopulos, D, (4990). Brain mnrphalagy in developmental dyslmia and attention deficit dis47, 919-928. order/ hyperactivity. Archizfes ~fhieurulogy~ Irrersen, S., (Ss Tunmer, WE. (1993). Phonological prcjcessing skills and the reading recovery program. foz-lrrznl cfEdticntional Psycizolagy, 85,112-126, Juel, C. (19516).What makes literacy tutoring effective? Rmding Rcsearc!~Qunrterly? 31,268-289. Kavate, K., (4r Forness, S.R. (1985). 7"ke science oflcr~mizzgdisabilities. San Diego, CA: College-Hill 13ress, Kistner, J., & Torgesen,J.K. (1987). Mc~tivationaland cognitive aspects of learning disabilities. In A.E. Kasdin & B.B. Lahey (Eds,), Advunces itz Clinical Child B y cholugy ( p p . 289-333). New York: Plenum Press.

tevin, H.S., Bentan, A,L., &r Grc~ssman,KC. (19821, Mcurobef?avioralcrorzsequctfcesof clmed head i~zjttry.New York: Oxford University Press. Liberman, I.Y., Shankweiterf D., (4r Liberman, A.M. (198fa)+The alphabetic grinciple and learning to read. In D, Shmkweiler CZr [.U.Liberman (Eds.), Pfzonology nlzd re~dingdisability: Salzlirtg the rmdkg puzzle ( p p . 3-33). Ann Arbor, MI: U. of Michigan Press. Lindamood, C.H., (4r Z,indarnood, (1984). Auditot.y fliscrimir-zation in Depfll. Austin, 3-32 PRO-EP), Lovett, M.W., Bordm, S.L., Beluca, T,, Lacerenza, L., Benson, N.J., CZr Brackstme, P). (1994). Treating the care deficits of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning after phonologically- and strategy-based reading training prc>grams.D~velapmenialPsyctwl~~gy~ 30,805-822. Lovett, M.W., Warren-Chaylin, EM., Ranz;by, M.J., & Borden, S.L. (1990). Training the word recognition skills of reading disabted children: Treatment and trans82,769-780. fer effects. )t?urr-ze;tlc$Educafional Psycfzul~gy~ Lundberg, I., Frost, J., ct;r Petersc)~,8. (1988). Effects of an extensive program far stimulating phonological awareness in pre-school children, Rmdittg Research Qunrferly, 225,26%284, Lyon, G,R, (1985). Identification and remedia tion af learning disability subtypes: f2retirninary findings. tmrnirzg Bis~biliCz'esFocus, 2,21--35, Manis, ER., McBride, C., Seidenberg, M.S., Doi, L., & Custodio, R. (3993, March). Speeclt percclp tiofr nnd pltonological nzuareness irz lzorrrznl and disabled readers. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orlems. Mann, V.A. (1993). Phoneme awareness and future reading ability. Joicarnnl of Learning Disabilz'tks, 26,259-263. Mann, YA,, CZr Liberman, T.Y. (1984). Phonological awarmess and verbal shortterm memory, jarat-rzal of learrzing Disabilities, 2 0,592-599. Meltzeu; L.J. (1993). Strategy w e in students with learning disabilities: The chaly and insirricfiltn for lenge of assssment. In L.J. Meltzer (Ed.), S f r ~ t e gassessmeni students wifh learniag disabititis (pp.94-140). Austin, T'X: PRO-ED. Mercex; C.D., & Mercer, A.R. (1993). Teachitzg sfudenlts with learnir-zg pmblenfs (4th Ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Meyer, N.M., Wcjod, EB., Hunt, L.A., & Fettsn, R.H. (1995). Predictive zlalue cf r ~ p i daarlfomafiz~drznmirzg fir later readitzg. Unpublished manuscript, Bowman Gray School of xuedicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Morais, l,, Alegria, J., &r Content, A, (198q. The relationships between segmental analysis and alphabetic literacy: An interactive view. Calziers de Psycltologie Cognitkle, 77:414-438. Olsen, R,, farsberg, H,, & Wise, B. (1994). Genes, environment, and the development of orthographic skills. In V.W. Berninger (Ed.), Tke z?nrietim#ortltograplzic and deuel~~pmental isszies (pp. 27-71), Dordrecht, Netherkzuwledge 1: TIze~re"lYfceitt lands: Kluwer Academic. Qlson, RX., Wise, B., Johnson, M,, & Ring; J, (in press), The etiology and remediation of ghonologically based word recognition and spelling disabilities: Are phonological deficits the "hole" story? In B, Blachrnan (Ed.), Four?dalions of readilzg ncquisitio~r, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Phonelogic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

133

Pemingtcm, B.!?., Cilger, J,W,, Olscln, ILK., & DeFries, J.C. (1992). The external validity of age- versus IQ-discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Lessons from a h - i n study Journal of learning Disabilities, 25,562-573. Perfetti, CA,, Beck, I., Bell, L,, 8r Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprc)cal: A Xctngitudinat study of first grade children. Men-ill-P@tmcr Quarterlyr 33, 283-33 9, Phut, D.G., McCleXland, J.L., %idenberg, M.S., (4r Patterson, K. (1W6). Understanding nsrmal and impaired wclrd reading: Cc>mputationalprinciples in Quasi-Regular Domains. 13sycltologicral Revieto, 220,51;--115. Rack, J.P., Snowling, M.J., &r Olsan, R,K. (1092), The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. Readinn issues refated to the education of learning disabled adolescents. In 5.K. Tt2rgesen & 23.Y.L. Wong QEds.), PsychaXqical nnd Educatioclnnl Perspectbes on Lenrnirtg DisabiliCies (pp. 329-365). New Vc~rk:Academic Press, Senf, G.M. (14b86). LD research in sociological and scientific perspective. In J.K. Tc>rgesen& B.Y.L. Mrong (Eds.), Psycltolngicaf ~ n Educntionnf d i5"erspeclives on Learrzing Dz'sabilifks. New York: Academic Press, Share, 0.1,. (1995). PhonoXogical recoding and self-teaching: S i ~ f equn novl of read55,454-218. ing acquisition. Cug~ilit~tz, Share, D.L., & Jorrn, A.F. (35387).SgmentaX analysis: Go-requisite to reading, vital for self-teaching, requiring phclnological memory*Eltiropenrz Bzltlet-lin ofCogt2itiz?e Psyclzology, 7,509-51 3. Share, D.L., & Stanovich, K.E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: A model of acquisition and individual differences. Xssues in Edumtz'on: Conlribur"ionsfio1r1 Educntioc7nal Psycltol~gy,1, 1-35. Shaywitz, S.E. (1996). Dystaia. Scient$c Amen'ctau, xx, 98-104. Shawitz, S.E., Escobar, M.D., Shaykliitz, B.A., F"letcl7er;J.M., (4r Makuct?, R. (1992). Evidence that dyslexia may represent the Lawer tail of a normal distribution of reading abiiiit-y.New Engl~ndfo'ournafr;?fMedicinex326,145-258. Sieget, L,$. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. jora?-rzal c?f Lear~ing Disabilitics, 22,469-479. Siegel, L.S., & Faux, D, (1989). Acquisition of certain grapheme-phoneme correspondences in normally achieving and disabtd readers. Rmdilzg and Mln'titzg: An Interdisciplinn~yJournal, 1,37-52. Snowling, M, and Hufme, C. (1989). A longitudinal case study of developmental phonological dyslexia. Crzgty.lzilizreNeul.apsycfiol~gy,6,379-401. Spear-Swerling, L., &r Ster&ergt R.J. (494). The road not taken: An integrative theoreticaf model of reading disability. Jloztrvlal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 91-103. Stanovich, K.E. (1Cd86). Matthew effects in reading: %me comeyuences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Rendittg Resm rch Qzanrterly! 21, 360406.

Stanovich, K.E. (1994). Discrepancy definitic~nsof reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research QunrtwIy? 26,1-29. Stanovich, K. (1993). Dcxs reading make yc~usmader? Literacy and the development of verbal intelligence. In H, Reese (Ed.), Adz~ancesin clzild dezwlopnzent and betmrli;or (VclX. 24, pp. 133--189). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A,E., & Cramer, B.B. (1984). Assessing phcjnologicaf awareness in kindergarten children: issues of task comparabiliv. Iourrznl of Experimental Glzi!d Psyclznlogy, 38, 175-190. Stanovich, M.E., & Siegel, L.S. (1994). The phenotypic performance profile of reading-disabled children: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference modet. foz-lrrzal of EducafiotmEPsycltology, 86,24--53. Stanovich, K.E., & West, R,E (1989). Expo>sureto print and c-trthographicprcjcessing. Readi~zgResearch Quarterly, 24,402-433. Swanson, Ef.1,. (19138). Infc>rmationprcjcessing thmry and learning disabilities: A cl-rmmentaryand future perspedive. ]t?urr-zalof Lcaming DisrabiEifies,20,155166. Tc>rgesen,J.K. (1991). learning disabilities: Historical and conceptual issues. In B.Y.L. Wong (Ed.), Learning abutif leanling disabilifies (pp. 3-37), San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Torgesn, J.K. (1993). Variations on theory in learning disabilities. In R, Lyon, D. Gray, N. Krasnegor, and j, Kauenagh (Eds.), Better ~inderstandislizzgIear~zi~zg disnbiliCQs: Pelspeetives on ela'nss~icntioc7n,identgllfion, and nssessmenf nlzd Clleir implicnf ions for education nud policy. Ba f tirnore, MD: Brookes. Tc>~.gesen, J.K. (1994). Issues in the assessment of executive function: An info-trmaticm processing perspective, In G. Reid L y m (Ed.), Frames ofRefew~2ce for the Assessment @Learning DisnbiliCies: Mew Vkws on Mensurenfenf Issues (pp. 14S162). Baltimore, MD: Brcmkes. Targesen, J.K. (1995). A modet of memory from an information processing perspectirie: The special case of phonological memory*In G. Reid Lyon (Ed.), Attention, Melrfory, n ~ Executive d Function: Issues iitz Canceytunlization arzd Mcns~~remeszt. Baltimore, M D Brooket;. Targesen, J.K., CZr Burgess, S.R. (in press). Consistenty of reading-related phonolcjgical prcwesses throughout early childhood: Evidence from longitudinal correlational and instrudional studies. In J, Metsala and L, Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in begz't~nrngliteracy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaurn. Torgesn, J.K., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness. foz-lrrznl cfE,rpen"mentnl Child Psycf~olugy,63, 1-24. Targesen, J.K., &: Hecht, S. (1996). Preventing and remediating reading disabilities: Instructional t~ariablesthat make a difference for special students. In M.F. Graves, I3.M. T'aylor, and P*van den Broek (Eds.), The First R: A Rigclltt ofAll Ctllildren (pp.133-159). Cambridge: MXT Press. Tt2rgesen, J.K., & Licht, B, (4983), The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Retrospect and prospects. In J.D. McKinney cSr: L. Feagans (Eds.), Topics in k?n~-rzr'ffg disrabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 3-32). Rockville, MD: Aspen Press. Targesen, J.K., Wagneu; R.K., CZr R a h t t e , C A . (1996, April). Prdictirzg iit~di~7i;Gdual dgerences in respnrzse to early instntetiorz in reading, Paper presented at meetings of the Council for Exceptimal Children, Orlando, FL.

PlrZonologic~7llyBased Rmding Disabilities

135

Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, ELK., Kashotte, C.A., Alexander, A., & Conway, T, (l%?). 13reventive and remedial interventions for children with severe reading disabilities. Learnkg Disabifjtim: An hztedisclyll'na~yjozrmal, 8,5142. Torgesen, J.K., litlaper, R,M., Rashotte, C.A., Burgess, S.R., f-fecht, S, (1997). The cmtributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming abiXiPy tcr the growth of word reading skills in second to fifth grade children. Scietzt$c Studies of Reading, 1,161 -185. Tunmer, W.E., & Cllapman, J.W. (4995). Context use in early reading development: Premature exclusion of a source of individual differences? Issues irz Educaliotz, 2,97-100. Wagner, R.K., & Barkeu; T.A. (1994). The development of orthographic processing ability In V.W. Berninger (Ed.), The z~ar2'etit.scforihogmph-ic knowledge I: Tl~coretical and develop~rzentalk s u e (pp. 173-218). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Mluwer Academic. Wagner, ILK., Torgesen, J.K., Laughon, P",, Simmctns, K., & Rashcjtte, C. (19%). The development of young readers"phonological prcxc"s&ngabilities. Journlrl of Edzkcatiotzal Psychc~logy,85,83-103, Wagner, R.K., Torgesm, J.K., & Rashutte, C.A. (1994). The development of reading-elated phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Der~clopmentalPsycliroEom, 30, 7>87. Wagner, R.M., Torgesen, J.K., Rashatte, C.A., Hecht, S.A., Barkeu; TA,, Burgess, S.R., Donahue, J,, & Garon, T. (3997). Changing causal relations between phonological prcjcessing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to fluent readers: A five-year longitudinal study. Dezjelspl7tentaI Pycholt~gza,33,468479. Wilson, B.A. (1995j. WiEson readi~gsystern: MSLE rmearcJ~report. Unpublished repart from Wilson Language Training, Millbury, MA, Wilson, B.A. (1988). Instructor trznnttal. Millbury M A : Wilson Language Training. Wise, &.W, & Blsen, R.M. (1995). Computer-based phonological awareness and reading instruction. Annals of Dyslex-ia, 45,cdq-122. Wolf, M., & Goc>dglass,A. (1W6). Dyslexia, dysnomia, and lexical retrieval: A longitudinal investigation. Bmin and Lnlzgzm~ge,28,154168. Wolf, M. (1991). Naming speed and reading: The contribution of the cognitive neurosciences. Rmdi~zgResearch Qliarterly, 26,123-141, Woodcock, R,W (1987). Woodcock Reading Masteqj Tests-Revised, Circle 13ines,MM: American Guidance Service. Usseldyke, J.E. (1983). Current practices in making psych-educatianal decisions about learning disabled students, Jwrnal of Lerzmz'ng Disnbilities, 16,209-219. Usseldyke, J.E., Algozzine, B., Shinn, M,, &h McGue, M. (1982). Similarities and differences between underachievers and students Xabeled Xearning disabled.. )t?urr-ze;tlof Syeci~lEducnliotz, 16,73-85.

Reading Disabilities and the Interventionist Miclzael G. Pressley

I spend much of my professional life thinking about. cfiildrem who experience difficulties with reading, There is much to thi.nk about, for many childrm efo not learn to read as a result of the instmction they experirnce in the printary grades. By the end of grade 1, it is not at all unusual for 20-30 percent of a class to be behind in reading, most often manifested as n decoding text. Problems in l e a m i ~ ~tog.read dufing grade I difkuities i predict continuing readirng difficulties during the schoolhg years (see, e.g., Satz, TayXor, Friei, 6E Fletcher, 1978; Sprem, 197f4). Problems in reading d u r a childhood are prt?dicti.k.eof poor reading during adulthood (Bruck, 1990, 19992; Firrucci, Gottfredson, iSr: Childs, 1985; Fraunheim 8r Heckerl, 1983; Schmhilut 6E Satz, 1983; Spreen, 1988). S k e the late 11370s, there has been steady accumulation of evidence that there are important biological differences between good and at least some poor readers. The information-processing differences between good and poor readers often are many*The contemporary reading inter~rel-rtionistb o w s that there is a daunthg challenge with respect to the prevention and remediation of readjng disabilities, at least with. respect to some children: That is, some children who experience dit'ficdties in learning to read probably s~1,Merbiological diMerences that transl,ate into a variety of inbrmation-processing differences which undermine the devebgment of skilled reading @.g., see Rruck, 1990; Gaddes, 1994, Chapter 8; Olson, 1994).

The work cc)vered in this chapter was supported in part by the National Rmding Research Center, headqrrartered al the Universitia of Marytand and Georgia.

More positively the work in mcmt years dso permits the conclusion ~ that we must make great e f oris to teach children to read b e b seriously entertaining the idea t h y cannot. Many children who experience difficulties learning to read are not victims of their biology; rather, their environments have been deficient in s m e jlnportant way. Thus there has been a variety of attennpts to enrich children" snvironments in order to prevent or remebiate reading disabilities. As a resuit, an impressive a r r q of findings about hterventions that work are makhg more certa,in children"~progress in literacy development. There is much that parents and teachers can do to decwase the likelihood of poor reading and to remediate poor rcadir?g for many children; the various pctssibilities are reviewed briefly isr the sections that follow. Mmy readers of this volume will have m prohlem accepting that the explicit interventions covered in this chapter make sense, Throughout the chapter, however, 1will point out the controversial nature of many oi these reccmlmcmdations relatiwe to the domhant language arts education perspective h the middle 1990s-whole language. This theme appears thruugkout the chapter, rather than being considered in a single section, in order to emphasize the many differences between instructional inter~rezztianistsm d whale lmguage theorists.,

Language-Rich Emergent Literacy Experiences During the Preschool h a m A great deal of literacy development occurs durkg the preschool years, the period rtf emergent literacy (Clay' f 966, 1967). Emergent literacy experiences begin with plastic ""bthtub" h o k s filled with colorful pictures and conthue as mothers and fathers read and reread nursery rhymes m d stories to and with their children and as children scribble letters to Grandma. Environments that support emergent literacy include (1)rich interpersmnal experiences with p a n t s , brothers and sisters, a d others; (2) phy sicd emir e~ntsthat hclude literacy mteridli from plastic refrigerator Letters to stor)ibooks to writing materials; and (3)high positive regard by p a n t s and others for literacy and its etevelopment in children fl.,eichter, 19%; R'lorrokv, 1996). Put more concretely, h homes h w:hicb emergent literacy is fostered, clrtifd.sen are exposed to paper-and-pencil activities, letters, and even printed words at an early age. Parents read to the chi:ldren, and they help ckildrctn as they at-cemptto read (e.g., by holding a book upright and pretending to read by recalling the s t o q as they rmember it). Books and other reading materials are prominent in homes supporting emergent literacy (Briggs 8r: Elkind, 1973; Clark, 1976; Durkln, 1966; King Br: Frksen, 1972; Morrowf 1983; Plessas cfr Oakes, 1964; Teale, 1978).

Storybook rt;ading has high potential for fostering emeqent: literacy. There are strmg and positive cordations between the arnoulnt of storybook readjng during the preschool p a r s and subsequent vocabulary and language development, child~n'sinterest in rczadimg, and early success in readi,ng (Sulzby & Teale, 1991).Gvem the appare~ztpower of storybook reading in stimulating children" literacy development, caregiver and child hteractions during stor?/book reading have been shtdied in some debil, Storybook mading can foster rich and animated discussions between =ader and child. 'They can w r k out the rwaning of the text, and they have a lot of fun dohg it (Morrow 1996). There clan be questionhg by both adults and children; modeling of dialogue by adults with children sowtimes paicipating; praising children's efforts tc:,get meaning from the picturcs alnd print; offering infornation to childscn and respondirzg to their reactians to the text; and both adults and children relating what is happe"ing in the text to their Lives and the world around them all enrich the experieme (Applbee 6r; Langer, 1983; Cochran-Smith, 1484; Flood, 1977; Pellegrini, Perfmutter, Galda, & Brody, 1990; Roser & Martinez, 3985; Taylor & Strickland, 1986). Scaffofding is promine~~t whell storybook reading is going well, when it is engaging to youngsters. Pamnts who arc good at storybook mading encourage children to ~ s p o n lto i the ~ a d i n and g participate as much as possible in the rcading itself, provi,di.ng support as chilhn, need it and providjng input that children can understand (e.g., DeLoache & &Mendtlza, 1487). With increasing age during the p~schoolyears, children art. attentive to longer sectims of text (f-leath,1982; Sulztnp & Teale, 7,987). With irtcreasing experience reading storybooks, adults and children have more complex discussions about the text (Snow, 3983; Sulzby clIr Teale, 7,987).Chitdren who experience a lot of storeook reading are aceustomed to interacting with an adult about story content; they am iappropriately attentive during storybook reading, much more so than sameage children who have not experienced storybook reading (Bus & Van Ijzmdoorn,1989). There has been some =search on diffemes in style of storybook reading and the eMects of such variation on cognitive developmmt. For example, children who interact with adults who are skillful at eliciting verbal interactions from their children during reacjing develop better vcxabdaries @.g., Ninio, 1980). Meath (e.g., 1982) estixblished a correlation between the degrce to which parents prompted and provided elahorations of book contmt and the eventual literacy attainment of their children: Children who expaiensed rich eldborations of text meaning did better on higher-order comprehension tasks than other children.

The correlations betwen storyhocrk reading and the development of emergent: literacy competencies related to later literacy dcveloprnent prompted Whitehurst and colleagues (1988)to study whetfier it might be possibk to improve parentat skilfs during storybook interactions and thus positively affcct the development of emergent literacy in children. The parents of 14 children between one year, nin.e months, and. three years of age participated in a one-month intervmtim designed to improve interactions between parents m d children during storybook reading. Parents were taught to ask more open-ended questions and. mnre questions about the functions and attributes of objects in stories as they read with their prcschookrs. The parents were also given il~strucltion about how to respond appropriately to their children" comments during story ~ a d i n gand how to expand oil what the children had tc:,say. The parents in this t r e a t ~ ~ egroup nt were also taught ta reduce the amount of straight readjng they dld as well as to eliminate questions that the child could answer simply by poi~~ting to someChing in an illustration. Fifteen other children and their parents served as control participants in the study; these families were encouraged to continue reading storybooks as they normally did with their c h j l d ~ n . First, the htervention parents were able to implelxent the treatment. That is, they learned to interact differently with their children during storybook ~ a d i n gand in ways that i n c ~ a s e dthe valities of parent-child interactinns. AIthough there were no differel~cesbetween intervention and control children at the beginning of the study with respect to language variables, there were clear differences at the end of the month of t r e a t ~ ~ cChat n t fa\rortld the intervation participants: They orltscored the control subjects on a standardized measure ol: psycholinguistic ability and on two vocabulary tests. What was most striking in this study was that w h e the ~ ~ same measures were repeat-ed nine months jater, the intervention subjects still had m advantage over the control pasticipants, af.though the d i f k ~ n c e we= s not as large on the 9-month follow-up as at immediate posttestkg. Notably, Valdez-Melzchaca and WEritehurst (1992) replicated and extended, the Whitehurst and colXeagues (1988) findixlg with Mexican children, h summary; there can be interactions between adults m d preschoolers involving materials and activities related to reading and writing. .A rich history of such interactions is predictive of subsequent success in literacy acquisition. 'That some preschoolers do not have consistent, excelllent emergmt ljteracy experiences has stimulated researchers such as Whitehurst to study ways of increasing interactions between parents and children that promote emergent literacy Tlre successes to date fuel enthusiasm for the possibility that many more chiMren could be much better

prepared for formal schoolirrg t h u g h efforts to increase the quality and quantity of I-ilmacy interactions du~ingthe preschool years. Althuugh emergent literacy experiences are somewhat predictive of success in early reading (Bus, van Ijzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1%; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994), a m r e powerful predictm is a kindergarten student's phonemic awarcmess, that is, awareness that words are composed of separaihle sounds (phonemes) a d that phonemes are combined to say words. Readhg interventionists have focused on phonemic awareness because it is the best predictor of success h early reading (e.g., Adams, 3990); reading intervention researchers are very aware that poor phlmemic awareness at four to six years of age is predictive of ~ a d i n diificuig ties throughout the elementary years (Juel, 1988; Stuart & Masterson, 1992). The one out-of-school literacy experience that predicts phonemic awareness is parental teaching of letters and their sounds (Crain-Thoseson & Dde, 1992). M a v parents, however, do not enpge in such teaching, so that education that impacts phonemic awareness typically occz~rs in school, For phonemic awareness to develop completely in n o m a l ~ a d e r sformal , instmction in reading seems essential (only a very small proportion of childre11 develoip the ability to carry out the most demanding of phonemic-awamness tasks in the absence of instruction; e.g., see tundberg, 199 Many experiments have demonstrated that phonemic awareness in h e - and six-year-olds can be increased with instruction that heightens children" attention to the component s o d s in words (e.g., Batl & Rlachman, 1988, 1991; Blachm, 1991; Bradey (% Rryant, 1983, 1985; Cunningham, 1990; Lie, 1991; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; ?Bngel & Blachman, 1992; Vellutho & Scanlon, 1987; Wllims, 19f10). wZEtout a dot~bt,however, the best h w n phcmemic-aovareness intervention &udy was conducted, in Englmd by Lynette Bradtey and Peter Bryant (1983). Bradley alld Bryant hypothesized, based on previously estaiblished correlations between children's rhyming and alljteration skiits (which require understanding that words are composed of sounds, i.e., which require phonemic awareness) and later rt~aetingachievement (e.g., see Calfee, Chapman, & Venezsky 1972; Cdfee, tindamood, (% iJindarnood, 1973), that providing instruction to children about how to categorize words on the basis of their sounds would increase phonmic awareness and hence, long-term reading achievement An important principle emphasjzed in the Bradley and Bryant (1983) instruction was that the same word can be categorized in different ways on the basis of sound when it is in different. sets of cvords. Thus, if h m is in a group of words Chat include knt, hill, hair, and hand, it would make sense to categorize all of these words toget)-ter as starting with h, especially in contrast to other

v.

words starting with another letter (e.g., b words such as bagI h z d , bat, etc.)" If hen were orn a list with ylar-lz and slan, however, these three words could be categorized as ones ending in rr. If he12 werc on a list of words that included bed and leg, it would be pclssible to categorize the words as ornes wif-;ha shove e in the middle. The training in the study involved. 40 10-minute sessions spread out over two years, although a mom recent version of the instruction was irnplemcmted over a period of four mon.t.hs (&radiey,1988). During the first 20 sessions, five- and six-year-olds who initially lacked phonemic awareness were tau@t to categorize words on the basis of common sounds uss the ob~ects(i.e., picturcs of a hen, mcn, m d a leg). For exing p i c t u ~ of ample, in one lesson a set of pictures representing the letter b was shown to the child whcr named the objects. The child ~ p e a t e dthe names with the teacher urging Che chitd to listen to the sounds. The child Chen was asked if he or she could hear a sound. commm ineach word. This activiv continued, with the adult providing help and hints if the child experienced difficulty, until the child codd identifr the common soumd. The sound-identification task was repeated a numher of times durtng training, a d there were variations (e.g., presentation of bus with the child required to pick out a picture stating with the s m e sound from an array of pictures; presentation of b24s with the dircctim to pick uut pictures of objects starting with a differc~ntsound than tbr one at the beginnilng of bus). Children. were given sets of pictures and asked to group them togetlner on the basis of common sounds and.also to justify their classiPications. In the odd-me-& acthim the child was required to elirninate a word starting with (or endi,ng or containjng) a soul-rd differernt from the other pictures in a set. Many such exercises were given for each sound (e.g., 6) with the teacher mouing on to a new sound mly when the child seemed to be proficient with the sound previously introduced. C)f course, as new sounds accumulated, the difficulq of tasks increased (e.g., depictions of many items starting with differcsnt sounds rather than one or two sounds, as is the case at the beginnkg of training)). The 20 sessions with pictures were followed by 20 sessions with words, with children rt~quiredto determine whether words rhymed. or began with the s m e sound (alliteration). After the chjld was prdieient at this task, there were lessons on md sounds (e.g., odd-word-out exercise requiring elhination of the worci ending im a sound different than the others). After the child could manage categorizing on the basis of final sounds, there was instruction of categorization based on middle sounds in words. Pictures yielded to purely aural presentatiorns in this traiining. Various discrimination exercises eventually gave way to production exercises, so that chi1drc.n had to recall wlrrcis containing particdaf sounds in particu-

lar positions. tn the latter half of the curriculum, children were r e q u i ~ d to spell words using plastic letters, with the teacher providing help up to and inclluding spelling the word for the child if that was needed. to move the lesson along. Spelling exercises ineluded sets of words sharhg common features. Thus for a set invol\iing h ~ f ,cat, and mf,an efficient strategy was simply to chmge the first plastic letter as each new ward MS requested. Such spelling tests iflustrated the safiency of many liiffert~nt sound patterns. This trainjng produced substantjal gains in standardized reading performance (about a year's aeiwantage) relative to a control condition in which childsen were trained to categorize pictures and words conceptually (e.g., cat, bat, and rat are all animals), The sound-categorizationtrained studmts were even fur*er ahead of contrd participants w o had received na supplementary categorization training. Even mort. striEng, however, were the results of a five-year follow-up. Even though many of the contrd suhjects had received substantial remediation during the five-year interval following participation in the study, there we= still, striking readlng advantages for students who had experienced the sound-categorization training when they wercl. in the primary grades (Kradl9p, 1989; Bradley & Bryant, 1993). Goswami and Bryant (1992) elegantly summarized the fhbings with ~ s p e cto t phonemic awareness: There can be little doubt that [phonemic] awareness plays an important role in reading. The results of a large number of studies ampjy demonstrate a strung (and consistent) reiatianship b e h e e n children" ability tu disentangle and to assemble the sounds in words and their progress in learning to read. . . . There is also evidence that successful training in [phonemic] awareness helps children learn to read-. . . . Put together, these h - o sets of data are cclnvincing evidence that [phonemic] awareness is a powerful causal determinant of the speed and efficimcy of learning tu read, . . . [This metalingttistic resarchl has immediate educational implications, and it will also undoubtedly piay a great part in theories about learning tu read. (p. 49)

In closing this discussion of phonelnic awarer.less, I emphasize that: most children's emergent literacy interactions with parents will not result in phonemic awareness; but a heavy dose of such intemctions with children between four and six years of age seems to go far in promoting success in reading. For phonemic awareness to develop, adults must lead children to think about the somds of words a d how somds are blended to produce words. Wniortunately, explicit instruction for such skills is antagmistic to the whole language tenets that c h i l d ~ ns h d d be oriented to the m e a n i ~ ~ g of h o l e text. Thus many children do not receive phonemic-awarenest;

instmction, and some experience difficulties in learning to read because of this lack (see Pressley & Rankin, f 994), especially those readers most at risk, They are often the least likely to discover on their own that words can be decompoxd into sounds that corrt-lspond to letters and letter sequences. It is not hard to understand why decoding instructim, which often is aperationalized as analyzing words into cmponent souncfs and blending the sounds, should be dil'ficult for a chitd who is unaware that words are composed of component sounds that are blended. Decoding Instruction

There is little doubt that learning to decode words is critical during the prirnary years of schooljng. By t-he time childrc?n arrive at grade l, where hstructim in decoding bas traditionally been emphasized for the first time, there are vast indivihal diffewnces in chjldren with respect to their preparedness for literacy, djMemnces argdy determined by previous interactions. The child who has had rich ernergent literacy experiences is better prepared for decoding instmction than the chffd who has experienced lhited knguage interactions. A history of interacrions with adults about the sounds in words and the relationships of sounds to one another to produce words is also predictive of success in early ~ a d i n g . Most predictive of atl, however, is receiving systematic instruction in decoding (see Adams, 199%Chapter 4).

Sozcutding Out and Blendt'zg The most common form of deccding instmction emphasizes using lettersnund re1ali.m~and bending them to somd out worcls. Most children can learn to decode in this way (see Adms, 1990, Chapter 4; Harris 6E Sipay 1990, Chapter 12). Mmy trials of successfulIy sounding out a word strengthen the memory of a word as a particular pattern of letters (Adams, 1990, Chapter 9; Ehri, 1980,1984,1987,1991,1992). For a m p l e , on initial exposure to a word say, frog, the word is sounded out. Such souncting out begins a process in which the connections hetwee11 each letter m d adjacent letters arc strengthened (e.g., betweenfi. m d q). Eventuatiy the word is represented in m e m q as a whole. W t h fncreased exposure, the word is rczcognized automatically

Students can be tautght phonirs rules (e.g., "When there is an e at the end of a syllable . . . "). There are a manageable numher of such mles (Clymer, 1963, produced a list of 45), and they work much of the time; that is,

termed rules and phonics generalizatims never hold 100 percent of the time. For example, W e 1 1two vow& go walking, the first does Che talking" works abuut two-thirds of the time, -Teaching c h i l d ~ nphonics rules does improve early eading (Adams, 1990; Anderson, Hiehert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985; Ehri, 1991).

As a child experimccs alphabetic reading, letter strings encountered often (i.e., in a nurnbcr of different words) eventually are perceived as wholes (e.g*,repeated co-occurrence of i, n, and g in that order results eventually in i ~ being ~ q perceived as a unit; see, e.g., Stanovich & Wst, 198'3).Prefixes and suffixes art. ob\lious examples, but there am other recurring connbkations, many of which are root hvords (-hkc, n d - , hen-, rog-, do-). WI-ren familiar orthographic pattems are encountered, it is not necessary to d e c d e alphahetically. It makes good sense to increase childrcn's awareness of pref xes, suffixes, and root words m d to teach them to make use of orthugraphic units to decode words, W r d s that sound the same often have tbr same spelling patterns. 'Thus c e could make a good guess at a child who knokvs how to p r m ~ ~ m beak peak the first time it is encountered silnply by decoding by analogy (i.e., This is like beak only it starts with a p!), That same beak-word ktower would have a f gMing chance with heal.^, head, and heal usiag the analogy strategy* For the most part, anaiogy has been considemd m advanced strategy used only by chi1drc.n who have been reading awhi1.e or by adults; Marsh and his colleagues are especially strong advocates of this position (e.g., Marsh, Desberg, & Cooper, 1977; Marsh, Friedman, Welch, & Desberg, f 981). At a minimurn, use of orthographicr recognition as a strategy probably depends m phonological &coding skills. Eh& and Robbins (1982) found that only cbildren who already had some phonologicat decoding skills were able to decode words by analow. Peterson and Haines (1992) produced results complementary to the Ehri and Robins outcome. fn addition, Bruck and Treiman (4992) demonstrated that even when young children can use malogies, they rely greatly m decoding of individual phonemes and orthographs when encountering new words. Xn short, teaching sbdmts to decade by analogy is a sensible strategy but one that complemetnts rather than reptxes phonological decoding strategies.

Explicit Z)eeodi~gInstmelion with Students ExpePisncing Severe Reading Dificealfies Explicit liecadk~ginstmc"cim to analyze and blend camponent sounds is effective even for Children who experience great difficulties learning to

read-that is, chitdren who leave the prima^ grades without hawing learned decoding. For example, Lovett, Ransby, Hardvviek, J o h s , and Dmaldson (1989) succeeded in improving the decoding of dyslexic students ages 9 to 13 through intensilie fnstmction of lettcr-sound analyses and hlanding, instruc.lion that also improbred student performance on a measurc of standardized reading comprehension. Lovett and collleagues (1994) also succeeded in teachjng dyslexic readers to decode using pho~nologicalanalysis and blerndjng; again, there was irnproved performance on a standardized comprehension measure relative to a cmtrol condition,

S m m a r y and Commentaqy There is considerable evidence that explicit teachhg of decodislg positively afiects chi.ldren%learning to read. As uncontroversial, as that conclusit,n may seem based on the evidence ~ p o r t e dhere, in fact, explicit decoding instruction has been largely out of favor in North American classrooms since the late 1980s. Oppoktim to decoding instmtion is af.most a defini~~g characteristic of whole language-oriented educaton;. k t various analyses of the fajlures of contemporar)i begjnning rcadir?g instruction have focused on the possibility that much of the failure has been due to lack of primary-lewei instruction in decodin$ (Pressley & Rankin, 1994; SmiCh, 1994)-that in .fact, much of primary reading failwe is due to poor decisio aking by teachers: Teachers arc deciding not to teach decoding explicitly, errantly believing that decoding skills can be a natural by-produchof immersion in print experielnces (e.g., group reading and rcreadmg of big books, listening to stories, and writing using invented spelling). In genclrat, it is true that when chitci~nread more, their phonological decoding skills jncrease as their hocvledge oE orthographs improves (see Allen, Cipiellewski, & Stanovich, 1992; Allington, 1977; Cipielewki & Stanovich, 1992; Cunningham & Stamvich, 1990, 1994; Juel, 1%8; Stanovich, 7,1386; Taylor, Frye, & Maruyma, 7,990). Thus children shodd indeed be encouraged to read, read, and read, which is a predominant strategy for increasing reading skills in whole language classrooms. The research on decoding instruction, however, makes clear that many chiMren are going to learn how to decode so that they can read, read, and mad only if they experience more expticit, systematic decodi17g instruction than is recmmended by whole language theorists and educators (e.g., Weaver, 1994). Comprehension Strategies Instruction

For more than a decade, readfng researchers have beliftved that readers who can decode but still experience comprehension difficulties can bene-

%4 from instruction in compmhension strategies. Palincsar and Rmwn's (1984)work on. reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies did much to inspire educator experimentation with comprehension strategies instruction. In the late 1980s and early 3990s my ccdleagues and I studicd haw educators effectively adapted comprrzhensim strategies instru,cti,om to classrow realities, with us dubbhg the educator approach to be tran* actional strategies instruction. Such strategies instruction has provm effectilie kvith readers expericx~cingdifficultjes in comprekcndjng what they read.

Recipmcal teaching, as d e h e d by Palincsar and Bmwn (19M), involved teaching studel~tsto usc? four cmprehension strategies: p ~ d i d i o nques, tionjng, seekng clarification when confused, and summarizatim. h Palincsar and Bralhmfs(1884) Study l, on each of 20 days of h~tervenl;ion,an adult teacher begm by cliiscussing Che topic of the day's text with the seventh-grade students who were the targets of the intervention, The targeted students were capable decoders but experienced comprehensim problem. The teaclner called for predictions &out- the content of the passage based on the title if the passage was completely new or for a review of the main points colrered for passages that had been begun the previous day. The teaher then assigned one of the two studex~tsbeing taught to be the "teacher," Adult teacher and students then read silently the first paragraph of the day" lesson. When everyone had finished reaeiing, the student teacher posed a question about th,e paragraph, swmarized it, and then either predicted upcoming content or sought clarification if there was some confusion about: the i11formatior.1 or ideas in the paragraph. If the student teacher faltered, Che aduit teacher scafiolded these activities with prompts (e.g., ""What question do you think a teacher rnight ask?"'), instruction (e.g., '"member, a surnmary is a shortened versjon."), and modificatim (e.g., "If y outre having a hard time l.hinking of a question, why don3 you summarize first?"'). Students were praised fnr their teaching and given kedback about its vality (e.g., "You asked that question well" or "I might have asked the question . . . "), Students took turns as the student teacher with a session lasting about 30 misrutes, n~rouglzcrutthe interventicm, the students were explicitly informed that questioning, sunmarization, prediction, and seeking clarificatim were strategies that w d d help them tmderstand better and that they shoufd try to use them when they read on their own.'f'he students wert. also informed that being able to summarize passages and predict the questions on upcoming tests werc good ways to assess whether what was read was understood.

Reciprocal teaching in this initial study positively affected all of the comprehensio~~ measttres taken, providing much reason for el~thusiasm about the method. Palincsar and Brown (l%&$,Study 2) also validated ~cigrocalteaching in a redistic classroom sibation, again with rrtiddleschool-age poor comprehenders. Much more r e s e a ~ hon the method followed, summarized by Rosenshine and Meister (1994). There wert. consistent, striking effctcts on copitive-process measures, such as those tapping s u m a r k a t i o n and selfquestioning skills. respect to standardized comprehension, however, thr effects were less striking, with m average effect size of 0.3 SDs. Perhaps the most importrmt conclusion to emerge from the ROS~IIshine and Meister (1994) analysis was that reciprocal teachlng was mre srtccessfd when there was more direct teaching of the four comp~hension strategies than whe11 there was not, importmt in tight of subsequent results presented in this section.

My colfeagues and I used a variety of qualitative m e h d s as we documented cornprehension strategies instruction that was developed by educators and was apparently effective in their settings (Brown & CnyOgan, 1993; El-Dinary Pressley, & Schuder, 1992; Gaskins, Anderson, Pressley, Cunj.celli, & Satlowl 3993; Pressley El-Dinaryr Gaskins et al., 3992; Pressley El-Dinmy, Stein, Marks, & Brown, 3992; Pressiey, Caskins, Cunicelli et al.' 1991; Prcsdey, &skins, Wile, Cunicelli, & Sheridan, 19%; Presdey, Schuderf SAL Facullty and Administration, Bergman, & ElDinary, 1992). Although the instructional programs studied differed in their pnrticulars, a nuntber of conclusions held across progsams, all of which served weaker rcladers; two of the three programs especially targeted weaker readers. In all of the progralns studied, a slnalf repertoire of strategies was taugfnt, typicdly including prediction based on prior-knowledge activaticm, question generation, seeking clarification when confused, mental imagerlii;relathg prior bowledge to text col~tent,m d summarization. In gcrneral, students were taught to use these strategies to comprehend, interprtrt, and ~ m e r n b e text. r There were also commonalities in the ways the comprehension instruction occurred: (1) Instruction was hg-term, optimally occuming over a nurnber of school years. (2) Teachers initially explained and modieled the compr&emsion strategies, gel~erallyin-line with the direct-explanat-im approach as conceived by RoehXer and &f+ (1984). (3) Following introduction of the strategies, teachers coached students to use them, provid-

ing hints as needed as to when students mi@t make strategic choices. There were many mhilessons about when it was appropriate to use particular stratcgks. (4) Students modeled use of strategies for one another, fnr exampfe, thinking aloud as they read.. Students explained to one another how they used strategies to process text. (5) l-hrougt-tout instruction, the usefulness of strategies was emphasized. Information about when and where various strategies could be applied was discwed often. (6) Teachers consistently modeled 'fexible usc? of strategies, for exam*, when they read stories to students. Much of the strategies instmction occurred in small groups with the intew that students kvolllid internaljze the procedural skills practiced in those groups (Pressley El-Dinary, Gaskins, et al., 1992). Consistent with the Vygotskian approach (Vygotsky, 1978), the assumption was that thinkhg skills can be developed by engaging in cog~~itiveiy rich interactions with other people, In particular, the strategies were used as vehicles fnr coordinating dialogue about text as students read aloud in groups fsee especidy Caskins et al., 1993). That is, they were encowaged to relate text to their prior knowledge, talk about their summaries of text meaning as they read., report the images they experienced during reading, and predict what xnight transpirccl next.,As studmts read aloud, they engaged in and exchanged personal interpretations of and responses to text (Brown clIr Coy-Ogan, 19%). l-he Pressley group described such teaching as "trmsactional strategies instruction"' because it emphasized reader transactions with texts (Rosenhlatt, 19781, interpretations collstntcted by readers thinking about reac.lims text togecher (e,g*,Mulchins, 1991), and teacher's and stude~~t-s' to text affecting each other" iindividual thinking about text (e.g., Bell, 1968). The descriptive studies conducted by the Pressley group were in anticeation of a comparative evaluation oi the educator-developed approach to ccrmprehension strategies instnrction. Brom, Pressley, Van Meter, and khuder (1996) conduckd a year-long quasi-experimental investigation of the effects of trmsactional strategies instmctim on second-grade children's reading. Five second-grade classrooms receiving transactional strategies instru,cti,on we= matched with crlassrooms taught by teachers who we= well regard& as languatge arts teachers but who were not using a strategks-hstruction approach. fn each classroom, a group of readers who were iow achieving at the beginning of grade 2 were identified, In fall, studcnts in the sh-ategks-instructioncondition and control participants did not differ on standardized measures of reading comprehension and word-attack skills..By spring, there were clear differences on these measures favoring the transactional strategies-instruction classrooms. In addition, there were differences favsring the strategies-in-

structed students on strategies-use measures as welt as interp~tivemeasures (i,e., strategies-instructied students m d e more diverse and richcr interpretations of what they read than cmtrczls). One of the most compelling differencesbetween Brown and colleagues 0996) transactional strategies-instruction studcnts and control students was that the students who had learned strategies acquired m r e content from their daily lessons. All children in the study were pn3st;ntt.d a cornmon reading as part of their rcgular instructjon. When tested later on what they remembered from the matcrial they had read, the sh-ategies-instruction students remembered more than controls. W ~ e n students learn comprdension strategies and use them, they get m c h more fsom the texts they encounter than students not taught to be strategir as they read. In addition tcr the Brown and colleal;ues (19%) study with weak second-grade studmts, klerie Anderson (1,992; see also Anderson & Roit, 1993) conducted a three-month experimental hvestiga6m of the effects of transactional strategies instrucrion on reading-disabied students in grades 6 through 11. Stude~ztswere taught comprehension strategies in nine small groups; there were seven control groups. Although both strategies-instructed and control students made gains on standardized comprehension measures, the g;ains were grcater in the trained gmup.. Anderson (1992) also collected a variety of qualitative data supporting the conclusion that reading for meaning improved in the strategies-instructed condition: For example, strategies insl.ructinn increased students' willingness to read difficult material and attennpt to understand it, collaborate with classmaks to discover meanings in text, a d react to and elaborate text. The work of Uonald Deshler, Jean Schumaker, and their colleagues must be acknowledged here. a t h o u g h they summarize their work in cog~zitive-hehavioralterms, from my fjrsthad observat-ion of their methods it is obvious that they arc teaching learning-disabled students to use comp~hensimstrategies in a transactional fashion. ?hey have been doing so for more lhan a decade in schools across N'Rrth America, producing various types of evidence that such hstmction improves the comprehension of struggling middle-school and high-school students (e.g., Deshler & Schumaker, 1988).

Closing Clo~aments Comprehension in weak readers can be inrpmved through teaching of comp~hengicmstrategies. Rather than providing students with a crutch, such teaching orients youlzg readers to comprehend as skilled readers do. There is considerable evidence from verbal protocol (thjnk-aloud) studies of skilled reading that good readers use the strategies that are t a u e t

as part cJf transactional strategies instruction (Pressley & Afflerhach, 1995). Wnfortunatelqi comprehension strategies instmcticm is not commonplace. Even 20 years after m r k i n (197s79) documented that instruction in comprehension strategies can jlnprove chjldren's mderstanding o( text (Pressley, in press; Pressley, EL-Dinary Whaton-McDonald, & Brown, in press), this teaching method is anything but universal. During 1995--1,996,my colleagues m d I (I"ressleyf Whaton-McDonald, Mistretta, & Echevarria, 1996) observed. 10 fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms. One of the most striking ohservatims was that little comprehension strategies instruction took place. Onc of the reasons that some children have difficulty in becoming good cmprehenders is that they are not receiving instruction about how to comprehend. m a t I and colleagues (1996) observcd j,nstea.d was a gre& d e d of sustahed, silcs~treading consistent with the whole language philosophy that if chi.ldren read a htt, they wilt natwalry become good. comprehenders (Weaver, l"394). My hjghly strdegic comprehension is view is that for at least some stude~~ts, not likely to develop in the absence of instmctim, More positively, many special educators are more likely to teach comprehemsion strategies to their &uden,ts than are the rcgdar educators in the same building. This is because of the gmerally greater awareness oi specid ecfucatrrrs of the value of direct instmction as well as the cmceptual leadaship of tbe likes of Deshler and Schwmaka In gencml, special education is an arena in which cognitively oriented instruction has thrived (see Pressley, Woloshyn, & iassociates, 1995). Conclusions Adulb scan interact in many ways with childre11 who are at risk for or experiencing failure in reading. F m infancy to hi@ school, chjldren's experiences with caregivers and teachers can make a difference im this respect. It is disturbing that there actually is opposition to much of the intervention described in this chapter. Proponents of the L\lhole language approah clarnor against explicit and systemtic skiils instruction both to promote phonennic awareness and to teach comprehension strategies (Smith, 1994). Wiy view is that the scientific community needs to contixtue to determine when and for whom such hslruction is effecrive. I susped that at least some of the interventions described in this cbapter make an impact even on some students who are biologically different from normal. waders. For example, recall LJovett's work, described earlier in this chapter: Students who had experienred exceptional difficdties learned to decode in school,

Until it is k n o m who benefits from which forms of interaction and instruction, X believe t-hat whe13 a child experiemes difficdies in learning to read, the informed educator shodd try to intervene in ways described in this chapter. I'he preschool- Mthose hnguage is underdeveloped relative to peers rnight benefit fmm elCorts to improve the emergellt literacy interactions in the family. 'The kindergarten student who lacks phonemic wareness might benefit from teaching aimed at orimting the chitd to the individual soullds of words m d how those sounds can be combined. The chitd who fails to learn to decode by the end of grade I might benefit from systematic &coding instruction, Instmction a h e d at anatyses of words and Mending of their con?ponent sounds is helpful for s o m children; other childwn benefit from instruction a h e d at learning the major or*t,gfaphs of English and using them to decoeie new words by analngy (e.g., using h o w k d g e of cat to decode ml)-The child who can decode but who has difficulty with comprehension should be a candidate for comprc"hen&onstrategies instruction. Especiafiy heartening is tbat there is at least a little evi,dcnce that jnstruction aifned at particular c o q e t e ~ l cies does have a range of eff.ects beyond the particular aspect of reading targeted by the interventicm, For exan-tple, Lovett and colleagues (1989, 1994) succeeded himpro~rkgcomprehension when they targeted decoding. Brown and others (1946) succeeded in improving word-level skills when they targeted comprehension. 1 close with the s~~ggestisn I have made many times. Sustained efforts will mast likely be needed to help weaker students perform near the n o m for their development& level. There were no quick fixes outlined in this chapter but rather a series of interventions Chat make sense at different points in the learning-to-=ad propssion. I suspect a child would be best served by encountering a rich language enviro ent in pmschool, instruction ailncd at developing pho~~emlc awareness in the kindergarten par, explicit decodjng instruction during the prirnary grades, and systematic ccrmprehension instruction in the later elementary gradcts. :Ihope that in my lifetime there will be a serious effort to determinr! whether sustahd, high-quality hstruction can make a difference that results in qualitatively better reading abifities during adulthood-which translates into grea.t.ereeonornic success, political freedom, and personal happiness. A. start in that direction is to root out the current anti-instructionalbiases fostered by M;hoZe language philosoyhy in the past decade or so, for until those biases are golle, there are gohg to be children who need explicit: instructiun to foster emerging language skills, phonemic awareness, decoding, and comprehension Mtho are not going to receive it. Philosophies that argue agajnst providing much-needed instruction to students who might benefit from it are dangwous philosophies (Pressley & Rmkin, 1994).

References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning E.0 rmd. Cambridge, M A : Hamard. University Press. Allen, L., Cipielewski, J., (4r Stano>vich,K. E. (1992). Multiple indicators of children's reading habits and attitudes: Construct validity and cognitive correbtes. Journal of Educat ionaE Psyclzology, 84,489-503. Allington, R. (4977). If they don't read much, how they ever gonna get good? journal I?f Readi~~g, 21,5741. Anderson, R. C., FTiebert, E. FT., kott, J. A., & Wilkinson, 1.A.G. (1985). Beeolning n natiovi: of readers, Washington, BC: National Institute of Education. Anderson, V. (3992). A teacher development prcjject in transactional strategy instruction for teachers of severely reading-disabled adolescents. Teaclzl'ng 6 Teacllet Edztmffon,8,393403. Anderson, V., & Roit, M, (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy instruction for delayed readers in grades 6-10, Elementn~ySc17znol loz-lrrzal, 94,1121-137. Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J, A. (1983). Instructional scafhlding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Lnnguagc Arfs, 60,1(;R-2.75. Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1988). Phoneme segmentation training: Effect on reading readiness. Annals 19Dyslexia, 38,20>225. Ball, E. W., &r Blachman, B. A, (4991). Daes phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental 6, spelling? Rcadi~zg12171;enrchQ u ~ r f e r l y ~ 249-66. Bell, 13. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. 13syctzologienl Reviezu, 75, 84-95, Btachman, B, A. (1991). Phonological awareness: Tmplicatians far prereading and early reading instruction. In S. A. Brady (4r D. l? Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes irz literacy: A fribiate to Isabelle "V, Lz'benrznu (pp. 29-36). Hillsdale NJ: ErXbaurn st Associates. Bradley, L. (1988). Making connections in learning to read and to spell, Applied Cognitive Psycllology, 2, 3-1 8, Bradley$L. (4989). Predicting learning disabilities. In J, Dumant & H. Nakken (Eds.), Lmrrzitzg disnbilifies, 2; C ~ g n i t i t ~socMl, e ~ and rerrzedial aspects (pp. 1-18). Amsterdam Netherlands: Swets. Bradley, L., CZr Bryant, I? E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read-a causal connection. Mafurex303,419-421. Bradley, L., & Bryanl; P. ((1985).Rlzyme a ~ rmson d E'FI rmdz'ng and splli;.tg. Tnternational Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities Series. Ann A h o r MI: University of Michigan Press. Bradley, L., Q Bryant, (15391). Phonological skills before and after learning to read. In 5. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonologicnl processes in Eiteracy: A tribute to Isabelle Y tl'berrrran (pp.37-45). Hillsdale, D;TJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Briggt;, C., & EIkirzd, D. (1973). Co>gnitivedevelopment in early readers. Develop9,279-280. menfal Psych~~logy~

Brown, R,, & Coy-Qgan, L, (1993). The evolution of transactional strategies instruction in one teacher % cdassrmm, Elelrwlztary Scltool journal, 94,221-233. Brown, R,, Pressley, M,, Van Meter, I?, &r Schuder, l'. (1996)+A quasi-experimental validation of transactionat strategies instruction with Xctw-achieving second grade readers, journal c?fEducntionalPsyclzolo~,88, 18-37, Bruck, M, (1490). Wc>rd-recognition skills of adults with childhc~oddiagnoses of dyslexia. Developmenlal Psyclaulogy, 26,439-454. Bruck, M , (492). Persistence of dyslexics"hancllogica1 awareness deficits. Dczyctopmenial Psycholom, 28,8";/4-886. Bruck, M,, & Treirnan, 13. (1992). Learning to pronounce words: The limits of analogies. Readifzg Researc!~Q~tarterly,27; 376398. Bus, A. G., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Petlegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of Iiteracy Review of Edztmtio~talReseadz, 65, 1-21. Calfee, 8, C,, Chapman, R,, & Venezsky, R. (1972). How a child needs to think to Iearn to read. In L. W. Cregg (Ed.), Cogtzitinrz in learr-zi~tg and memuy. New York: Wiley CaXfee, R, C., Lindamood, I,., & Lindamood, C, (19731,Acoustic-phonetic skills and reading-kindergarzcm though twelfth grade. Jourrzal of Educational Psyclzology, 64, 29S298. Cipieliewski, J., & Stanovich, K. E, (1992). Predicting growth in reading ability from c=F.iiXdren%eexpcJsure to print. Juurnnl of Expetimcnlal GhiM Psyctzology, 54, 74-89,

Clark, M, M, (1976). Your~gflfluetzt rtrtzders: WltgE can t l q teach zks? Landon: Heinemann. Clay M. M, (1961;). Emergetzf.rtrtzdi~zgbcknviol: Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Auckland, NZ. Clay, M. M. (1967). The reading behavior of five-year-old children: A research repart, New Zcal~zndjt~urr-zalL?fEdzicatiorzalStudies, 2, 41-31. Clymer; T. (2963). The utility of phonic generalizations in the primary grades. Readi~zgTeacher, 3 G, 252-58. Cochran-Smith, M. (19634). The nznkizzg c$n re~der:Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Crain-Thoreson, C., & Bale, ?I. S. (1992). Do early talkers become early readers? Linguistic precocity, preschoml language, and emergent literacy, Dezteloprnetztral Psycltol~~gy, 28,421 -929. Cunninghiam, A, E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic atvareness. Jour~zralof E3r.perimenfnlChild Psyc!~ol[>gy, 50,429-444, Cmningharn, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E, (1990). Assessing print exposure and ortbgraphic processing skill in children: A quick measure cjf reading experience. Journal cf Educntioncrl Psychology, 82,733-X8. Cmningharn, A. E,, & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Trackhg the unique effects of print exposure in children: Assaciatians with vocabulary general howledge, and spetling. lournal of Edztmtionnl Psycllology, 83,264-274. DeLoache, J. S., & DeMendnza, O.A,P, (19871, Joint picturebook interactims of mothers and 1-year-old children. Britistz jclur~nlI?( Develoilment-RIPsycltology, 5, 111-423.

DeshIer, D. D., & Schumaker, 5, B. (1988). An insbuctional mcldel for teaching students how to learn. In J. L, Graden, J. E. Zhs, & M, J, Curtis (Eds.), Alternnfizre edumtii3llnal dcliveq systents: EI-I~EO;~ZCZY~~ z'nstnretional options for all students (pp. 391411). Washington, DC: Nationat Association of School Psychologists. Durkin, D. (1966). Ghildreft WTEO rend early. New York: Teachers College Press. Durkin, D, (1978-197")). What classroom observatiom reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Readir-zg Researclr QunrterEyf l 5,4481-533. Ehri, L. C. (1980).The development of orthographic images. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cr?gnz'tive processes E'E spelling (pp. 311-338). tandon: Academic Press. Ehri, L. C. (1984). Hc>worthography alters spoken language competencies in children learning to read and spell. In j. Downing & R. Valtin (Eds.), Langzdage awareness and lenrirzizzg ko r e d ('p.119-1 47). New YsYrk: Springer-Verlag. Ehri, L. C, (1987). Learning to read and spell words. jclur~zafof Re~dingBelt~uior~ 2 gr 5-31. Ehri, L. C, (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In K, Barr, M. L. Kamil, E B. Mcjsenthal, (3r 1". D. Pearso)n (Eds.), H~ndboakof readz'tzg reseadt, Vol. 2 (pp. 383-41 7). New Ucxk: Longman. Ehri, L, C, (1992). Reconceptualizing the d e v e l ~ r n e nof t sight word reading and its relationship tcr recobing. In P, B. Cough, L. C. Ehri, & R, Eeiman (Eds.), Readi~lzzgacquisition (pp. 107-143). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ehri, L. C., ct;r Rc~bbins,C. (1992). Beginners need some decoding skill to read words by analogy, Readiazg Resenrclz Quarterly, 27, 12-27, El-Dinary P. B., Pressley, M., & khuder, T. (151132). Becclrning a strategies teacher: An observational and interview study of three teachers learning transactional strategies instruction. In C. Kinzer & D. lE~u(Eds.), iforky$rst Yearbook offlze NQtiozzat Readitlg Cor$ere~~ce (pp. 453462). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Finucci, J. M,, Gottfredsun, L, S., CZr Childs, B. (1985). A hlXow-up study of dyslexic boys. At(tlze;tlsof Dijslexia, 35,117-136, Flood, J, (1977)-Parental styles in reading episodes with young children. Readilfg Tegcher, 30r 844%7. Frauenheirn, J. G., & Heckml, J, 13. (1Cd83). A longitudinal study of psychofogical and achievement test performance in severe dyslexic adults. Jmrnnl ofLearnirzg DisabiIz'tie"~.s 16, 339-347. Gaddes, W H. (1994). Learnhg disnbilifim and bmir-zfuncl. ion (3rd ed .). New Ycxk: Springer-Verb. Gaskins, X, W., Anderson, R. C,, 13ressley;M,, Cunicelli, E, A., CZr Satlow, E. (1993). Six teachers3dialogue during cognitive process insbuction. Elemerttnry Sclzool journal, 93,277-304, Goswami, U., (4r Bryant, P. (1992). Rhyme, analcjgy and children's reading. In P. B. Gough, L. C, Ehri, CZr R. Treiman (Eds,), Readiffg acquisitiolr (pp. 49-63), Hillsdate, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn Assodates. Harrir;, A. J., &r Sipay, E, R. (1940). How to increase re~dingability: A gzride to developmcszfnf & renfedial ;ntefllc?ds.New Ycxk: 1,ongman. HeatI~,S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and schuof. Languqe 62 Society, 33,49-76.

Hutchins, E, (1991). The social organizatic~nof distributed cognition. In L. Resnick, J. M, Levine, & S. B. Teasley (Eds,), krspeetives 013 socially shared cognition (pp.283-307). Washington, DC: American PsychoXo>gicalAssc~ciation. juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. journal ojEdzrmGionnl Psyctzul~~gy, 80,417-447. King, E. M,, & Friewn, D. X (1972). Children who read in kindergarten. Alberta Jozlmnl c$ Edzrmfliannl Rcscal.ei?z,18,147-162. teichtel; H. P. ((1984). Families as envirnnments for literacy. In H, Goelman, A, Oberg, & E Smith (Eds.), Azu~keningfr;, liter~cy.Exeteu; N H : Heinemam Fducatic~nalBooks, Lie, A. (1991). Effects of a training program far stimulating skills in word analysis in first-grade children. Rending Researclz Quarterly, L?br2M-250. Lovett, M. W., Borden, S, L., DeLuca, T,, tacerema, L., Bensm, N. J., & Blackstone, D. (1994). Treating the core deficits of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning after phonologically- and strategy-based reading traini ng prcjgra ms. Develapnfen tal Psychol~~gy, 30, tKf5-tS;12. tovett, M. W., Ransby, M, J,, Hardwick, N., Johns, M, S., &r Donaldson, 5. A. (1989). Can dyslexia be treated? Treatmmt-specific and generalized treatment 37, effects in dyslexic children" response to remediation. B m i ~alzd La~guage~ 90-121. Lundberg, I. (1991). Phonemic awareness can be developed without reading instruction. In S. A. Brady & B. 1,. Shankweiler (Eds,), I2honola;~icalprocesses in liferGq: A Cribrite Co Imbelle X Libemtan (pp. 47-53). Hillsdale N J : Lawrence Erlbaum Asst~ciates. Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Tfeterscjn, 8. (1988). Effects of an extensive program f o x stirnutating phonological atzrareness in preschool children. Rmding Xesearcli Quarterly, 22,26%M, Marsh, C., Des;berg, P",, & Coc~per,1. (197). Developmental strategies in reading, journal I?( Readifzg Behavior., 9,391-394, Marsh, G., Friedman, M., Welch, V., & Desberg, F" (1981). A cognitive-developmental theory of reading acquisition. In G. E. MacMinnon & "I: G, Waller (Eds.), Rmdi~zgreseadz: Adz111necsir-z theay anlzd practice, Vol. 3 (pp. 199-221). New Yc3rk: Academic Press. Mcjrrow-, L. M. (1%83). Home and school correlates of early interest in literature. Inunznt of Edlacational Research, 7 6 221-230. Morrow' L. M, (1996). Literacy dez~clopmentin the early years: Ilel~jifigcltildren read alzd wr-ite (3rd ed.). Engtewc>c>dCliffs, Nf: Prentice-Hall, Ninio, A. (1980). Picture-book reading in mother-infant dyads belonging to two subgroups in Israel. Ctzz'ld Deuelaprrzenf,51, 587-5530. Olson, R. K. (1994). Language deficits in "specific" "reading disabiliy, In M. A, Gemsbacher (Ed.), I-I~ndbookcfpsyci'~olinguis1ics(pp, 895-91 6). San Diego: Academic Press. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. 1,.(19%). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fc3stering and monitoring adivities. Coglzifiorzand Instntetio-r.1,1, 117-475. PeXlepini, A. D., Perfmutter, J. C., Galda, L., clSr Brody, G. H, (19%). Joint reading between black Head Start children and their mothers. Gl1~z'ldDe"ucrlopmertt, 61, 443-453,

Peterson, M. E,, & P-iaines, L, P? (1992). Orthographic analogy training with kindergarten children: Effects of analogy we, phonemic segmentation, and letter-sound knc>wledge,fozimnl cf Readif18 Bekazliur, 24,1053-1 27. Plessas, G. I?, & Oakes, C. R, (1964). Prereading experiences of selected early read ers. Rmding Teaclzel; 1 7,241-245. Pressley, M, (in press), Comprehemion strategies instruction. In ucllume based on 1996 Wingspread Conference on Balanced Reading Instruction. New York: Cuilfc3rd Press. Pressley, M,, & Affleu;bach, P. (1995). Verbal yrofocols of readirtg: Tfze nature of c m strtictivety respnrzsive rtrtzding, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn Assaciates. Pressley, M., & Associates (1990). Cognitive stmtegy instrzketion that really works zoilfh cltl'ldren. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Book. Pressley, M,, El-Dinary, 1,. B,, Gaskim, I,, khuder, l'., B e r p a n , J., Almasi, L., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyc)n"irect explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elerne~zhryScjrool loltrr-zal,92,541-554, Pressley MM., El-Dinary P. B., Stein, S., Marks, M. B., Br Brc>wn,R. (1992). Good strategy instruction is motivating and interesting, In A. Reminger, 5. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of i~zt-erestin Ienrr?i~~g and develuptrtent (pp. 333-3581, Hillsdale, MJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates. Pressley M,, El-Dinary, P. B., Wharton-MeDonald, & Brom, 13. (in press). Earnactionat instruction of comprehension strategies in the efernentar-y grades. In B, Schunk & B, Zimmerman (Eds,), Sev-regzilntion bmk. New York: Guilfc~rd Press. Pressley, M,, GasErins, I. W*, Cunicelli, E. A,, Burdick, N. J., %hub-Matt, M,, tee, D. S., & Powell, N. (15191). Strategy instruction at Benchmark School: A faculty l4,19-48, interview study. Learning D.is.nbill'dyQunrte~ly~ Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Wile, D., Cmicelli, B,, $r Sheridan, J. (1992). Teaching literacy strategies across the curriculum: A case study at Benchmark khc~ol.In J. Zutell & S, McCormick (Eds.), tmrner fac;.2cfars/feacher fncfars: issues irz lifemcy resea~fznlzd izzskruetion: icorfiefhyearbook c$ the Notional R m d i q Cclrtference ( p p . 219-228). Chicago: National Reading Conference, Pressley, M., (4r Rankin, J. (1994). More about whole language methods of reading instruction for students at-risk for early reading failure. Lennlr'tzg Disabilities Res e a ~ h& Pmclice, 9, 357-168. Pressley, M,, Schuder, T., SAIL Faculty and Administration, Bergman, J, L., & ElBinary, I", B. (1992). A researcher-educator collaborative interview study of transactional comprehension strategies instrudion. ]uz.rrr-zalof Educatz'orzal Psyclzulugy, 84, 231-246, Pressley, M., Wharton-NcDonatd, R., Mistretta, J., & Echevarria, M. (1996). Tke nature c?f literacy i~.rstructz'onin fen gmde4/5 classmms in uj~stnfe New York, Man.uscript under review. Albany NI(: University at Atbany; State University of New York, Depadment of Educational Psychology and Statistics. Pressley, M., WoXoshyn, V. E., & Associates (1995). Cugnilz've str~tggyir-zsfrucfion thaf rally 1mrh ruitlr childrcrz (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Boc~ks. Koehler, L. K,, & Dttffy, G. G. (1984). Direct explanation of comprehension prc>cel;sel;.In G. G. Duffy 1,. R. Rcjehter, & J. Mason (Eds.), Compretteszsion insdnrction: Perspecfives nlzd stlggcsdfons (pp,265-2801. New Yt:,rk: Lc~ngman.

Kosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The re~del;the text, the poem: The tmtlstlctiorzal t t w o o~f the litrmy work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Rosenshine, B., & Meistex; C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of nineteen experimental studies. Revkw cf Educnfl'onalResearell, 64,479-530. Roser, N., & Martinez, M, (1Cd85). Rofcsfi adults play in preschool responses to litera ture. tangziage Arts, 62,48%490, Satz, E, Taylor, H, C,, Friel, J,, & Fletcher, J, M, (1978). Some devtzl~rnentdand predictive precursors of reading disabilities: A six-year followup. In A. L, Benton & D. Pearl (Eds.), Dyslexia: An appraisal ofczirre~zf. k~owledgc.New York: Oxford University Press. Scarborough, FT. S., & Dc>brich, W (1994). On the efficiency of reading to preschoolers. Developmenlal Review, 14,245-302,. Schonhaut, S., & Satz, T). (1983). Prognosis for children with learning disabilities: A review of follow-up studies. In M. Rutter (Ed.), Dezlelopmentml neuropsycl?iatry. New York: Guilford Press. Smith, C. B, (Moderator) (19534). Whole tangziage: The Debate, Bloomington, IN: ERIC/ REC. S p r ~ n0. , (1978). Prediction af schoc~lachievement from kindergarten to grade five: Review and repc~rtof a fc~llow-upstudy. Rc.smrc/z Mn~zographNo.33. Victoria, BC: Department of Psychologyt UUnersity of Victoria. Spreen, O. (1988). Lcarni~zgdisabkd elzild~nglwwi~gup: A follow-up izz fo ndr.~lf)zood. New York: Oxford University Press. Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew efkcts in reading: %me consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Readitzg Restaxfi Quarterly, 21, 360-407. Stanovich, K. E,, & West, K. F. (1989). Exposure to print and srthographic pracessing. Rendilzg Research Qzt~rterly~ 24,402433. Stuart, M,, ct$: Masterson, J. (1992). Patterns of reading and spelling in 10-year-old children related to prereading phonolctgical abilities. lozrrnlal of Experimental 61zild Psycllology, 54, 168-1 87, Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. (1987). Young ellildren's sto~yboc?krending: Langifzrditzal strtdy c?f paren t-cltild instruct ion and dzr'ldren"sit2depezde~"ffinetior-~i~~g* (Final Report to the Spencer Foundation), Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, Sulzby, E., 8s Teale, W (1991). Emergent literacy. In R, Barr, M. L. Kamil, I.? B. Mosenthal, & P), B. Pearson (Edti.), Ha~dboukof reading rewarch, Vol. II (pp. 727-758). New York: Longman. Tangel, D. M,, & Blachman, B, A. (1992). Effect of phoneme awareness instruction an kindergarten childrm's invented spellings. lourlzral of Xeaditzg Behavior, 24, 233-261. Taytor, B. M., Frye, B. J., & Maruyarna, G. M. (1990). Time spent reading and reading growth. American Edwcalional Research Journal, 27,351-362. Taylor, D., & StrickXand, B. (1986). Family storybook reading. Exeter, NH: f-leinemann Educational Books. Teale, W. H. (19%). Positive envircjnments far learning to read: What studies of early readers tell us. tangziage Arts, 55,91;?2-932,

Valdez-Menehacir, M. C., & Whitehurst, C. 1, (1992).Accelerating language development through picture book reading: A systematic atension to Mexican day 28, 1106-1 114. care. Developnfenial Psycjtol~lgy~ VelXutina, F, R., $r Scanlon, D, M. (2987). Phonological-coding, phonological aw-arenas, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study, Men-ill-Pnlmer Quarterly, 33,321-363. V5pgotskyf )p;<. S.(1978). Mind in society: The developmenf of lzigkzer psycholqicnf processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weaveu; C. (1994). Readirlg process and pract ice: From socio-psyclzolizzg~~istz'cs to zuffole Inizgu~geP~ortsmuuth,NE-I: ljeinernann, Whitehurst, G, J., Falcu, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., BeBaryshe, B. D,, Vaidez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language deveXopment throu$ pictur&aok reading. Develop~rzentalPsycltology, 224,552-559, Williarns, J .P. (1980). Teaching decoding with an emphasis on phoneme analysis ?"2,1-15. and phoneme blending. bzimal of Edrrcalioptral Psych~;llt?gi/,

Learning Disabilities: The Roads We Have Traveled and the Path to the Future

Learning disabilities are defined as significant difficulties in reading, spellb~g,mithmetic, &/or writjng in spite of average or above-average intelligence, teaming disabilities have tradilionally been defined, by a diagncsis of exclusion; to be considered learning disabieci, indivihats must have abrerage or above-average IQ test scores, have had access to adequate i_nstruction,and nut have had.neurological problems or significant emotional dishtrbances that might be cmsidered to be respollsible for their difficulties in acquiring skills. For over IOU years, we have h o w n about the existence of leamhg disabilities in some Iform, but often it seems as if we have made little pmgress in our uneierstanding of this complex problem. In this chapter, I discuss where we have traveled in our attesnpt to mderstand learni~~g disabilities, the problems, the pitfalls, and the dead ends. I wilf provide (l.)argument-s and evidence that the identificatim of learning disabilities has been made an ecessasily complex and c m plicated process, (2) a diticussion of the major types of learning disabiliof learning ties, (3) an otltljne of the role of IQ tests in the ide~~tification disabilitier;,(4) suggestions for how we can help individuals with learning disabilities, and (5)some directions for the future.

The researcl1 desc;cribed in this chapter was suppae-ld by a grant from the Natural kiences and Engineering Rewarch Council of Canada. I wotlld Like to thank Kirn Koztlfci for secretarial assistance.

Identification, of a Learning Risabitiw Tn order to determine whethr there is a leaming disa:bility, the individual is tested by a psychologist, Learning-disat3ilitiesspecialist, psychmetrician, or some presmably qualified professional. This testing often takes between three and ei@t hours, sometimes even longer. Then the tests must be scored and interpreted and a report written. When a m e t ing is called, the psychologist or psychometrist or learning-disabiliv specialist must attend to explain the results and discuss the diagnosis and the possible educatimai tmatments. It is obvious that this is a very complicated process. Typically, a great deal of time m d nnoney is used to identify which individuals have a learning disability. :I will dernmstratc that the process can be made much sknpler, less costly, and more efficient to~idcntify learnkg disabilities. and provide a simple s y s t e ~ Efficiency can be achieved by rclducing this excessive testing-by eliminating intelligence testing, using simpIe and objective tests of achievement, and using psychoeducational testing to reveal patterns of stxngths and weahesses in areas that are dlmctly relevant to providing remediation in specific academic areas. In this chapter, evidmce and information will be provided to show hokv these goals can be accon?plished. I kllow of no empirical evidence that extensive testing leads to djfferent choices of r a d i a t i o n strategies or a better outcome for those with learning disf-abilities* It is important to have some system, for the identification of learning disabilities. 'f'his identification should be based on objective measures of achievement, iutcluding reacling, spelljng, arithmetic, and ilpossible, writing (Siegel, 1983a; Siegel& Heaven, 1986). If an individual receives a htw score on any of these measms and if there are no extenuating circumstances, such as being educated in a nonnative language or having a sensory or neurological disorder or an emotional disturbance, the individual should be said to have a learning disabitity. Some argue that what I call a learniag disabiljty m y he just a problem with hadequate education or education, not directed at the child's '"learning style." My assumption is that the children who we say have learning disabilities have been exposed ta appropriate educational techniques. Most children in the school system learn to read, spell., write, and do arithmetic cal.culations with a reasonable degree of proficiency, so it is hard to imagine that severe difficdties 21these areas are a result: of' inadequate jnstruction. Of course, &ere can be further psychoeducational assessment, but if additional testing is used, it should be rczlated to developing a remedial educational progran? for the hdividual and not merely assessment for its own sake.

The Roads We Ha27e Trazlelecl nnd fhe Patll to fhe I""ulzcr.e

161

Subtypes of Learning Risabififies Educational testilrg &odd be designed to identify specific learnhg disabilities, There are three major types. One of these is a reading disahitity, somtirnes carlcd dyslexja, in which the individual has difficuities understanding the sounds of letters and =cognizing words and &ows problems in the areas of memory and lmguage and usuaIfy with spelling (e.g., Siegel 8s Ryan, 1"3, 1988; Stmovich, 1988a, -67; Velf~lifi;llo,1978). A phonological processing problem is a f u n d a m t a l problem of this disabitity. (I-;or lietailed discussionsf see Siegel, 1993h, 1994a, h; Snowing, Rack, & Ofson, 1992; Stanovich, 1988.) hll dyslcxjcs have trhis phonological processing kficit. These are some idividuals who have readingcomprehension a d not word-recot;nition or phonological problems. Mowevcr, those with a readjng-comprehension deficit do have problems with shofikrm and working memory (Siegel &f Ryan, 1989). Another is a disabflity called developmental output failure, writing-arithmetic etisatoility or a "nonverbal learning disability""Individuals with this problem bave difficulty with computational arithmetic and written work and, often, speXting and have problems with fine-motor coordination and short-term memory but, typically, have good oral language s:kills Gevine, Oberklaid, & Meltzer, 1981; Morrison & Siegel, 1991; Rourke, 3987, 1488; Kourke & Tsatsanis, 39%; Siegel SE Feldman, 1983; Siege1 & I:.,inder,198.2).The third type of disabilitl, is called attenti011 deficit. hyperactiviq disorde~(ADF1D). Hyperactivity is anotlller, but not as accurate, name for this problem. It invokes difficulties with concentration and irnp d s e control. It is actrlaly quite controversial as to wt.lethcr this is a learnhg disability because the problems are relakd to behavior and cannot be assessed objectively with standardized tests. There is a lack sf agrement on the mmncr in which, r Z D M I C ) should be assessed. To masure these learning disabilities, there are several types of tests that should be used. Specifically, an assessment of m individud for the possibility of a readi,ng disabiljty should include a measu,re of"wordrecognition s k i k These word-mcognj.tion skills arc the basis of gaining meaning from print, and it is importmt to know i.f skills in this area are signiCicantly below average (e.g., fitanovich, 1982).hassessment should include a readlng test that h~volvesthe reading of what are callled pseudoworcfs. These pseudowords are prcmounceable combinations cJf English letters that can be sounded out with the basic rules of phonies. This type of test assesses the awareness of phonics, which is the key to decoding words in an alyhabetic languqe such as English. There shodd be a test of spelli,ng involving words dictated to the individual. This pardlcls the type of spelfhg reytlired for writhg. There should be a test of compu-

tatianal ari*metic skills to determine what the :!individual mderstands about the lundarnental arithmetic operations,. Performance on these tests should be compared to age-related, not grade-~lated,norms. Grade norms artl commcmly used, but they hawe a number of methodoogical difficulties and are not valid i,n a psycXnorne& ric sense, (For an extended discussion of this issue see Siegel& Heaven, 1986.) If an individual has a low score on m y of these types of tests, it is appropriate to consider this problem as a learning djsafctility We consider a score below the 25th percmtittz as evidence of a learning disabiliw This is admikledly arbitrary, but it seems to correlate w d with the observations of teachers and parents. OfLtviously, there can be other reasons for poor performance, and this possibitity should be examined. However, a Low score?is usually an indicati.on of a probkrn and shodd not be ignored. It is considered important to measure reading cmpsehension, and m the surface, h i s seems quite reasonable. :It is logical to expect that we can understand what we read, and comprehension is critical to reacling. There are, however, many problems with standarcjized rcading-comprehension tests. For example, most of the questions do not repire an inference; findjng the ansbver directly in the text is sufficient. Many can be answered without readmg the text, for example, "Bmanas arc not grown h which of the following places: Centrat America, South America, India, m Alaska?'Wften, these tests are very poorly constructed(seeTal, Siegel, 8r Maram, 1994 for a discussion of these issues), Aiso, these ~ading-cornprehension tests emphasize speed, and most of the difference between the children, who do well and those who do not is in reading speed (Biemiller & Siegel, 1995). In addition, children who have only a readingg words comprc"hen6on prt,blem and no diltficulq with ~ a d i n individual do not have difficulties with phonologicat processing or synlax, for example, as do children who have a deficit in word recowition (Siegel & Ryan, 1989). The children who have reading-cornprehensio~~ problems with no associated hvnrd-recognition pr&lems do have sjgnificant prokllems with short-term. and working memory (Siegel & Ryan, 1989). There are often fallacies in the interpretation of what a test actually in which the individual has measures" For example, an ""arit-;hrneticf~est to compute answers to problems in his or her head may be assumed to measure arithmetic, but this is not necessarily a correct assumptim because a task such as this places heavy demands on memory. An indjvidual may be able to solve the problem with a paper and pencil, a situation that obviously reduces memory demands. However, trYithcrut a careful consideration of the task delsands of the test, an incorrect inference mi&t be made about the child" ari-thmetic skills,

The Roads We Ha27e Trazlelecl nnd fhe Patll to fhe I""ulzcr.e

163

Attention deficit hyperactiviay disorder can be detected by v e s t i m naires such as the Connors Rating Scale (Goyette, Connors, & Ulrich, 1978) for chifdren and the Wender Utah Ratirtg kale for adul6. For this type of scale, the pamnt rates the child on a variety of dimensions of hehavior, such as inattention, impulsivity, and antisocial behaviar; in the case of the aduii, the individual provides a self-rating. These ratings are subjective and difficult to verify with any type of objective evidence. Mowevcr, they remain the best measures we have. More detaiied testing can be done, but m y testing should be rclated to remediation and not just used automaticaily without consideration of what the test really measures and whether it is really necessary IQ Tests

The IQ score as part of the defini.tion of a, learning disability has been absent from this discussion so far. The prevailing wisdom is that the :IQ test is essefiial to Chc identification of learning disabilities, 1 would like to argue that IQ scores arc irrekvant to the identification of learning disabilities and that intelligence t e s t a does m t contribute to the understanding of the educational needs of the individual. In this chapter, I will summarize the issues associated with the use of IQ tests in the defi~~ition of teaming disabilities. These issues are discussed in detail in Siegel (1989a, b), Toth 8s Siegel (1994) and Siegel (1993a). n e r e are at least two rezlsms the IQ test is considercld necessary. The definition of a learning disability requires that a child be of average or aboveaverage intellige~~ce, and it has been traditional to separate individuals who are learning-disabled from those who are ~ t a s d e dThis . disthction is made on the basis of the IQ test. R~erefare,to maintain this distinction, an IQ test must be a d ~ ~ h i s t e r eh d .addition, it is common in many systems to require that there be a discrepancy between an individuat's "'potential" (IQ) and his or her achievement levels. Xn other words, a chiidk readjng or arithmetic. skills need to be significantly below what would be predicted by the IQ score for the child to be consjdered learning disabted. E will illustrate the problems with the use of the IQ test in each of these cases, the separation of learning-disabled chi1drc.n from nonlearning disabled individuals and the use of the XQ score to calculate a discrepancy between ""ptentid" and achievemmt. I w u l d like to demonstrate some of the problems with the use of IQ tests with a specific case, as outlhed in Siegel(199Q).This is the story of a real indiwidual whose name has been changed to protect his privacy. I:.,arsy,age K, received a score of 7% on an IQ test He was placed ina class lfor mentally ~ t a s d e dchildren, This is a case in which the IQ score was

used to make a decision that he was mentally rc-rtarded, and this fact shodd be kept in mind as the rest of the case is reviewed. He rclmained in classes for the xnentally rcltarded until age 14, Today, at age 34, he is enm k d in a graduate p m g m in a major Canadian university after cornplethg a BA in psychology with an & avcrage. Larry had great difficulty learnhg to read, spell, write, and do arithmetic calculations. When tested at age 34, his IQ scortr was in the high-average range; however, he still had sig12ificant pmbl.erns with r e a h g and spelling. His score on the reading (word recogit-i.on)subtest of the Wide Range Achiwement Test (WRAT) was at the 18th percentile, and his score? on the spelling subtest of the W M T was at the 4th percentile. His score m the Woodcock Word Attack subtest, a measurc of phmic skills, was at the 6th percentile, These are all extremely low scores. I-Le had difficulties on short-term memory tasks and had occasional di,ffieulty with verb tenses and word. finding in spontaneous speech, He had goad generai h o d e d g e and vwabdary and an average score on a reading-comprehemsion test. f a s y at age 34 displays a profile of a readi,ng-disabled individual; yet at age 8 h was called mentally retarded. Larry's case is a very drmatic example of the consequences of using an Q test score as part of the definition of a reading disability At age 8, Larry was rendi~z~q disabled but, instead, was cdled mentally retarded. tarry was fortunate enough to have a very determined personality and very supportive parents who fought for hir; righls to be edwated. Fortunatelyf this case has a happy endhg, but fsr many children with genuine learning problems, the ending is not university or graduate school but jail, dcohol abuse, or suicide (e.g., Barwick Ph Siegel, in prrzss; McBride & Siegel, 1991i"f.Larry's supportive environment did not prevent or cure his readhg disability; his ~ a d i n g prtiblem remained throughout his schooling and into adulthood. However, his environment probably prevented Larry from developing the serious social problems that arc often a consequence of an undetected and untreated leaming disability. 1s I:.,arsy a rare? exceptior~?No. Today a child with poor reading skills and an IQ of 7% would be labeled "mentally retaded" or a ""sow learner" or said to have a ""gc?nerallearning disability" md, in any case, would usually not be labeled as reading disabled. He would not receive intensive help with readilng because it would be argued, incorrectly, that we should not expect better rc-rading from an fncrfividual with this IQ level. UnEortumtely, Child~nwith Inw IQ scores who show s i g ~ of ~ ssevere reading problems are still called mentally rcltarded. A great deal of importance is still given to the 1Q score in the definition of a reading disabilily, or, in fact, any other learning disability. fn many schools, colleges, and uni:versities, the intelligence test is one of the primary ones used in the identification of leamhg disilbilities. Ch-te of the

The Roads We Ha27e Trazlelecl nnd fhe Patll to fhe I""ulzcr.e

165

criteria for the existence of a learning disabffity is the presence of a dis1 will argue that the crepancy between IQ test scare and achieveme~~t. presence of this discrepancy is not a necessary part of the definition of a g disability and, fur*ermore, that it is not even necessary to admhister an IQ test to determhe whether there is a learning disability. WiEl the "Real" It& Please Stand Up?

A key assumption of the proponents of the use of IQ test scores is that intelligmce can be measured in the s m e way as height or weight. However, height is a physicd dime~nsictnthat has a physicn) reality- htelligence is not a physical dixnension but is a constr~det..nerc; is no yardstick fcrr the real IQ. Indepmtfent &servers with different rualers would arrive at the s a m number, wjthin a centimeter, for the height of a person. hdependent IQ tests often arrive at quite different numbers for the IQ of a particutar individual. There is universal agreement among scientists on what cmstitutes a millimeter, cen.t.imeter,inch, yard, and so on; however, there is a great deal of controversy about the naturc of ixrtelligence and how to measure it.

P(;! and LD: A Case of Bias There is an additional problem in the use of IQ tests with individuals who have learning disabilities, IQ tests are quite diverse in, the abilities they measure. Some require a great deal of wrbaf skills and others, reading skills; some quire wrnory, visual spatial, M l s , m d / m fine-motor coordination. It is a logical paradox to use IQ sc0rt.s with learning-dis-. &led individuals because most of these people are deficient fn one or more of the component skijls that are part of these IQ tests; therefore, their scores on 'fQtests will be an underestirnate of lheir competence. It seems fllogicral to recognize that a child has deficient memory andlor lmguage andlor be-motor skills and thcn say that an individual is less intelligent because he or she has these pmblems. O f course, IQ tests differ in the skills they measure, but the problem that the indlriiduats with learnhg disabilities will receil~ea spuriously tow score is characteristic of all of them. There is mother possible bias irr the use of IQ tests. I and colleagues have shown th& childre11 from lower soci~econon?icbackgrounds with reading problems have, on the average, lower scores on IQ tests thm do chiidren from higher socioc;conomicbackgrounds who have the same degrw of r e a h g problems (Siege1 & Himcl, in press). mercfore, chil,&em horn lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to be denitid access to services because they have lower IQ scores.

Another issue in assessing the vdidity of the discrepancy definition is the problem of "Matthew effects,'"~ dcrscribed by Stanovich f198&). The Nliatthew etfect means that individuals who m good rcladers read more and thus gain vocabularyf knowledge, and language skills and, consequently, obtain higher IQ scores because the IQ test measures all these skills. Poor readers, in contrast, show a d e c k in vocabulary, languagef and knowledge because of fewer opportunititLts for exposure to print. Stmovich reviews studies to show that IQ scores decrease over time for reading-disabled ckildrcn..My colleagues and X have shown that the IQ scores of older chlldren with a readmg disabjlity are significantly lower than the IQ scorns of younger children with the same severity of reading disability (Sicgel & Himel, in press). The existence of these Matt"new effects is particularly relevant to the discussion of the role of IQ in the measurement of reading disability because the Matthew effects cast doubts on the vdidjty of the IQ measure, particularly for chiittrcn with rcacling and other learning problems, s on it are not useful in the identiThe intelligence test and s c o ~based fication of- learning disorders. 'There are both logical reasons for and empirical data to support this statement. It is often argued that we need XQ tests to measwe the. ""ptentiai'? of an individual. ?'his type of argument implies trhat there is some emtit-y that is real that cvill tell us how far m indkidual can go, how much he or she can learn, and. what we can expect of that child. Preswably, this :IQ score is a measure of logical reasonfng, probkm solving, critic4 thinki,ng, and whatever we m m by intelligcrnce. This s ~ m dquite s reasonable until one examines the content of the IQ test. IQ tests measure facbal knokvkdge, word-meaning recognition, memory, fine-motor coosdinati,on, and the fluency of expressjve language and do not measure reasoning or prdblem-solving ski.lls. They measure, for the most part, what a child has learned, not what he or she is capable of doing in the futurc3. Typical items on the IQ test consist of definitions of certain words, questions about geography and history, tasks involving he-motor coordinaticm such as doing puzzles, memory tasks in which individuals are asked to remember a series of numbers, and mental arithmetic problem for which children must calculate ans w w without the benefit of p a p e n n d pencil. It is obvious that these types of questions measure what a child has ,erne& not problem-solving or critical thinking skills. Clne assumption behind the use of m IQ test is that IQ scores predict m d set limits on acadelnic performmce. Thus if m individ~~al has a law IQ score, we presumably should not expect much in the way of academic skills. In other words, by using the IQ test in the psychoeducational as-

The Roads We Ha27e Trazlelecl nnd fhe Patll to fhe I""ulzcr.e

167

sessmmt of possible teaming disabilities, we art- assumfng that the score on the IQ test indicates how much progress in reading, arithmetic, and other areas we can expect from an individual. However, there is some evidence that contradicts this asswption, There are chi1drc.n who have low scores on IQ tests, that is, scares less than 90 or even SO, and yet have average or even abwe-average scores on reaiding tests (Siegel, 1988).Logicdly this shodd not occur if the level of ~ a d i n g competency can be determined by IQ scores.

There is also empirical evidmce that suggests it is not necessary to use the concept of inteuigence in definiq ~ a d i n tdisabilities. ; I have conducted studies in whicln I divided children with reading disabilities into grouphased on their IQ level. I then cornpared these groups on a variew of language, memory speflint;, a d phonologicai tasks (Siegel, 198KLt). In spite of wide differences in Cheir IQ levels, there were no differences between the IQ groups m these reading tasks. Thus administering an IQ test would not provide useful information about performance differences on reads%-relaled tasks. One typical use of th flrZ test is to measure the discrepancy between IQ and academic achievement. In some systems, if there is a discrepancy, the child is said to have a learning djsability. If the child is a poor readcr but has no discrepancy between his or her IQ and readjng scores, the child is not considered readlng disabled. Hawever, I have conducted a study and collected data to show that there is no rcason to require that there be a discrepancy betwerrn IQ scores and reading scores fur the child to be considered learning disabled (Siegel, 1992,1996). An assumption of the djscrepancy dcfinitioll is that children who are dyslexic and who have a discrepancy beheen their reading and Q scores are different from those children who are poor readers and who have lower IQ scares and no discrepancy between reading and IQ. I have studied the dift'erences between dyslexics and poor readers on a variety of phonological processing, language, and memory tasks (Siegd, 1996). Although the dyslexi,cs had significantly higher IQ scorns than the poor readers, these two groups did not differ in their performance on reding, spelling, phonologi'af processing, and most of the language and memar?/ tasks. mere were also no differences in reading comprehensian betwee11 the dyslexics and poor readers. In all cases, the performance of both =ading-disabled groups was significantly below that of normal readers. kading-disabled children, whether or not thcir reading is sigrtificantly below the level predicted by their IQ scores, have signi.ficant problem in phonological pmessing, short-term and working memoryf and syntactic

awareness. On the basis of these data, there does not seem to be a need to differe~~tiate between dyslexics and poor readers. Bath of these groups are mding disabled and have deficits in phonological pmcessing, verbal memory, and syntactic awmness. 'I'here does not appear to be any ernpiricaf,evidence to justify the distinction between dyslexics and poor ~adess.

77ze v e ~ b a l - _ f " " e ~ f ~ rDiscrepancy n~iln~e &e rationale offered for the use of intelligence tests in the assessment of who is learning dis&led has been that the patterns of performance on the parts of the %Qtest can provide useful infomatim about the learning disability. For example, it is stitl helievd that if an ineiividual has a d i s c ~ p ancy between the verbal scale and the performance scale on the MSC-R, this is a s i p of a learning disability I have never understood the logic of this type of defhiticm, The questions on an IQ test do not directly measure achievemnt in the areas relrjlted t~ school learning, so it is not clear why s c m s on m %Qtest have mything to tell us about rezld.ing, spelling, writing, or arithxnetic. My oMin data of a sample of over 200 chifdren with learnhg disabilities hdicate that approxhately 40 percent had no signific;mt discrclpancy between their verbal and. perfomance IQ scores and yet wercl. having major problems in school. fn addition, 30 pcrlrcmt of children who were having 170 difficulties h school had a signlfcant djscrepm y between verbal and performmce scores. These relationships clearly show that a verbal-perfomance discrepancy is rtot a =liable indicator of a learning disability It is true that m n y learning-disabled children show patterns of having tow scores m the subtests that measure memory or he-motor performance; however, many chftdren with normal achievement scores and no learning disabilities do also.

Remediatio~and IQ One of the arguments given fnr the use of intelligence tests is that scores on these tests can be used to place the child fn the appropriate educational program. The underlying assumption of this approach is that IQ scores pxledict the child" abjlity to benefit from a remdial pmgrm. En fact, there is not much evidence on this point, but from the little there is, remedktiou. it appears that IQ scores do not.predict the abilify Zo be~~eflffiorn Studies that have actually nzerirszirt.d the relation between IQ and Ihe effects of remediation have found that learning-disabled children wifh Eozuer sco~rsshowed gairrsfr~mrent.i.tdiaZicn~similar to those of children with tligher 1Q scores (Arnold, Smeltzer, &t BarnebyI 1981; Kershnq 1990; Lyttm, 1967; van der Wsef (41: Zegers, 1985).'Torgesm, DAlem, and Grrenstein (1987) fomd that in some eases, gains in reading p e r f o r m c c among wading-

The Roads We Ha27e Trazlelecl nnd fhe Patll to fhe I""ulzcr.e

169

disabled children were not related to IQ scores but in some cases there was a small hut statistiedy significant relationship. C)nc dudy (Yule, 1973) even f n d that "reading backwasd" "ildren (poor madem) with low= IQ scores made more gains than "specifically reading disabled"" children (dyslexics) with higher XQ scares. Usre of the difficulties with the excessive reliance on psychoeducatiltnal testing and the IQ scow is that =mediation is often neglected. That is, there is no attempt to relate the test scores to what e d u c a t i d methods and strategies might be used to help the individual. People in the field need to encourage the development of specific and detailed assessment of acadmic skills to give us useful clues about bow to provide remediation for individuals with learnirtg problems, Where Mle Have Been I have argued that in the .field of learning disabitities, we have traveled alo~~ some g roads that are dead ends. Excessive assessme~~t and the use of IQ scores are two of these roads. Another is the issue of subtypes. There have been a number of attempts to define srthtypes within the field of learning clisabilitks. 'These studies often have serious logical and methodological ffaws (see Metsala & Siegel, 1992; Morrism 6r Siegel, 3991; Siegel, Levey, & Fernis, 3 9 s for an extended discussion of these issues), The three subtypes (or two if we elimhate ADHD) described earlier seem to be as close as possible to the reality of learning disabjlities, although there arc. many indhiduai variations.

What. We Can Do to Help Irrdividua2s with Learning Disabilities There are tvvo general types of methods that can be used in the treatment of learning disabi1i.fies. 9he first involves direct attempts to t ~ a the t problem and eliminate the source of the di,fficLtlty; the sxond attempts to find some alternate educational strategies that do not eliminate the problem but provide the child with ways to cope with the problem. fn generill, the most effective treatmat for learning disabilities is teaching strategies to compensate for the problem; direct rernediatior-r is sometimes not effective. I will describe the various alternatives for each of the subtypes. Individuals with a reading djsability read slowly and with a great deal of effort; they have difficulty understanding what they have read; they cannot hterpret new or long words in the text easiily; they cannot remember what they have read; and,most hportant, they often hate reading. A very useful technique is to provide books on tape so that they can look at the print and hear the words at the s a m time. R i s strategy helps build

up ~ a d i n gfluency, speed, and basic vocabulary C)f corarse, these tcxtbooks must be at an appropriate readiirrg level. Another techique appropriate for children is to use high-interest, low-vocabulary books that stimulate their intertist fn rczadhg but are not so chdlmging as to make reading impossible. Anolher technique s~titablefor young children is the Bridge Reading Program, in which the children learn to associate words and picturt-s. Graciualfy, they read simple sentences in books with a cornbinatirtn ol words and pictures. 'Then, they mad sentences With only s o m of the pictures and,h a l l 5 with none of them. This technique has proven successfir1in helping yamg children who have rttaciing difficulties (Biemiller 8r Siegel, 1997), Computers are important for indjviduajs who have learnhg prdblems. I'he computer can help with fine-motor coordinatim because the skills involved in typing are mu& simpler than those involved inkandwriting. And if handwriting is a serious prohlem, the computer makes the writhg legible. Computers also have software that enables writers to check their spellbg. The computer notes words that it cannot find h its dictionary and suggests alternate spellings. This is invaluable for jndividuals with learning disabilities. For individuafs with writing and arithmetic problems, eompukrs are very fie:ipful and can provide important aids to irnprove writing skills, as demonstrated by Yau, Siegel., and Ziegler (1991). We showed that c h i l d ~ nMIho had access to computers improved in the quality and quantity of what they wroteTape recorders are also useful for developing oral skills and allowing the teacher to hear the quality of the child%ideas. Calculators are useful for childsen who have diffiicuS@with, nulnber facts and mu,ltiplica.t.iontables. Xt is still. necessary that the children learn esthating and problemsolving skills, but the calculator provides an important aid for memar?/ problems. The Road to the Future

We need to follow three directions simultmeously h order to mderstand learning disabilities and help thase who have faced these probtems throughout their life. First, we need to agree on a definition of who is learning disabled. Second, we need to try to understand the strengths and talents of individuais wiLh a l e a m i ~ ~disability. g mird, we need to cmcentrate our e f wts 011 the early detectim of learning problelns. X will discuss all of these issues below

mo Has a Learning Disability? I have discussed an identification process that is simple and makes cmceptuaf sense. The two cornerstones of this process are objective mea-

The Roads We Ha27e Trazlelecl nnd fhe Patll to fhe I""ulzcr.e

171

surements of achievement (as liescribed p~vioudly)and the abandonmetnt of the use of an IQ-achievment di,screpancy The process can be made simple and cost effective w i t h o ~reliance t on excessive testing.

In my experimce, hfndividuals with learning disabilities are extremely tafented in one or more of the following areas: music, art, dance, sports, d r m a , and mechanical skills, 1believe it is very important for the educational system to try to develop these talents and to recognize these abilities when they exist. For example, two very talented individuals, Agatha Christie (Siegel, 1988) and.Yeats (Miner ct; Siegel, 1992), both showed evidence of significant learning disabiliticts. Agatha Christie had great difficulties with spelling, arithmetic, handwriting, and learning a foreig~nlanguage, She in fact changed the titles of two of her books because she did not h o w hcrw tcr spell the worcls she wanted to include. Yet she had a vivid imagination and was able to write books ;L-hathave been trmslated into many languages and are known all over the world. Veats experienced great difficulties in reading, spelling, teaming Latin, and memmizing historicai facts. His poor handwriting, spellingl and punctuation earned him very fow grades in composition in school: yet he won the Nobel Prize for his writil~g. Pengle MIith learning disabaities often experience difficulties with selfesteem and self-concept and, as they proceed in school, experience mart. and m m failure. Psychologicai problems and even antiswial behavior are often consequences of this iow sel,-esteczm. For these reasons it is important to identifr learning disabilities early and provide remediation as soon as possible.

Milzy Wc Must Pvovide Solutiotzs to the Prahtems of L e a d n g Disnhilil.ies The correct identification of learning disabilities is critical for the health of our society and fndividuals. If we fail tcr identify these ineiividuals and do not provide the help that is necessary, the resdts can be disastrous. We have shown that 82 percent of the homeless youth in Toronto ("street kidsm")hae learning disabilfties (Barwick & Siegel, in press), This startling statistic means that mast of these youth did not receive the help they needed fall had at least a grade 10 education) and had to deal with the emotional, academic, and social consequences of their Icarnhg disabil,ities, Perhaps this lack of help is one of the rcasons they have et~ded up homeless and jobless. Et is interesting in this regad that the 18 percent who did not have obvillus learning pmbltms were as likely as those who did to come from backgrounds with social problms, sMbslance abuse,

and sexual andlor physical abuse; so it is difficult to argue that these factms are causally related to learl?img disabilities. We have also shown, thruugh an maXysis of suicjde notes, that a significant number of adsles-. cent suicides can be attributed tc:,learning disabitities (McRride & Siegel, f 997). We can prcvent rnany social problems il we identify learning djsabilities early, before secondary emotional problems develop. After this, identificatim, =mediation, and fie provision of acccrmmodations such. as those described earlier arc the next steps. Wr;. have taken rnany false steps and followed many paths that have led, nowherc, :Ithink we can arrive at our goal to l-relp all illdividuats with teaming disabitities only if we m a z e and think logicalSy about. the prnblcm and &andon t-he dogmas and false beliefs that have been part of the field.

References ArnoXd, L. E., Smeltzer; D. J., (4r Barn&y N. S. (1981).Specific perceptual remediation: Effects related to sex, IQ, and parentsQoccupational status; behavioral change pattern by scale factors; and mechanism of benefit hypothesis tested. PycIzoEugica Reports, 49,1913, Bell, L., & Perfetti, C, A, (1989). Reading ability, "reading disability" and garden variety lc>wreading skill: %me adult comparisons, Unpublished manuscript. BiemilXeu; A,, & Siegel, L. S, (1997).A longitudinal study of the effects of the Bridge Reading Program far children at risk for reading failure. L e ~ m i ~Disabilities g Qz-lcdrferly,220, 83-92. Bloom, A., Wagner, M., Reskin, L., & Bergman, A. (1980). A comparison of intellectually delayed and primary reading disabled children an measures of intelligence and achievement. Journal of Clin-ical Psycllol(1gy,36,788-790. Cobrinik, L, (1974). Unusual reading disabitity in severely disturbed children, fozrmal I?(Azltisnzland Childhood Sclzrio~~hre-evtii1,4,Z63-175, Dast j. P., Mensink, D,, & Mishra, K, K. (1990). Cognitive processes separating good and poor readers when IQ is covaried. Learr~ijtgand Individi-lail Diflerences, 2,42-36. Ellis, N., cSr Large, B, (1Cd87). The development of reading: As you seek so shall YOU f incl. British Jots rnn f of Psyci"lof~1gy, 78, 1-23. Fixher, F. W., Liberman, I. U.,&r Shankweiler, D. (197";7).Reading reversals and deveXopmental ci ysfexia: A further study. Cortex, 14,496-51 Q. Fletchel; J. M. (1992). The validity of distinguishing children with language and learning disabilities according to discrepancies with IQ: Introduction to the Dl'snbilities, 2,!jf 54&545. special series. joztl-rzal ofLenf-rzr'~zg Francis, D. J., Espy, K. A., Rourke, B, A., CZr Eletcher, J. M, (19W). Validity of intelligence scores in the definition of learning disability: A critical analysis. In B. Rourke (Ed.), Ne~iropsycfiologieali:~alidaticllnof learrtl'ng disability subtypes (pp, 15-44). New Ycxk: Guil Ford. Friedman, C., & Stevensan, 1. (1988). Reading processes in specific reading retarded and reading backward 13 year olds. Britisft Jozlcmal cf Devel(1prncnlal Psychology, 6;,97-108.

The Roads We Ha27e Trazleled nnd fhe Patll to fhe I""ulzcr.e

173

Coyette, C. H., Conners, C. K., & Ulrich, K, F. (1978). Ncjrmative data on the revised Conners Parent and Teacher Rating Scales. jour~nlofAbrzormal Clzild Psychology, 6,221-236. Hall, J. W., Wilson, K. I,., Humphreys, M, S., Tinzmann, M, B,, & Bowyer, I,. M. (1983). Phonetic sirnilari3 effects in good vs. poor readers. Menzaq and C q n i tion, 12,52&527, Johnstsn, R. Set Rugg, M. D., & kott, T. (198%). The influence of phonology on good and poor readers when reading for meaning. jourrlat ofrvlernory and Langzkage, 26,57-68. jcihston, R, S., Kugg, M. D., & kott, T, (198m). Phoncllogical similarity effects, memory span and developmental reading disorders: "fhe nature of the relationship. Brz'lisftJournlrl of P~ycFtalogy~ 78,205-211. Joknston, R, S., Rugg, &lhiE. D., cSr Scott, T: (1988). Pseudohamophone effects in 8 and 21 year old goad and poor readers. Jwrnal of Resmlrelz in Readilzg, 11,130-1 32. jorm, A,, Share, D, L,, Matthews, R, J,, & Maclean, R. (1986). Behavicirar prcjblerns in specific reading retarded and general reading backward children: A tongitudinal study, lourr-zalqChild Psyclzoiogy and Pyctziatq, 2 7 3\3-43. Kershner, J, R. (1990). Self-concept and TQ as predictors of remedial success in children with learning disabilities, jarat-rzal c$len~-rzingDisabiFities, 23,368-3%. Liberman, l, X, Shankweilcsr, D., Orlando, C,, Harris, K. S., CZr Berti, F, B, (1971). Letter confusions and reversals of sequence in the beginning reader: Implications for Ortan%theory of devdcrpmental dyslaia. Cortex, 7,127-142, Lytton, H . (196'7). Fcdlow up of an experiment in selection of remedial education. Brili~frjarat-rzal of Edrrcalicl~tralPsych~~logy, 37, 1-9, McBride, H., & Siegel, L. S. (1997). Learning disabilities and adolescent suicide. Iourr-zalof karr-zi~tgDkabililies, 30,652459. Memell, K, W (1990). Differentiating Xow achieving students and students with learning disabilities: An examination of perfarmances on the Wac~dcoek-jobson Psycho-Educational Battery: joumnl c?f Special Educatiotz, 24,296305. Rack, J. (1989, April). Reading-IQ discrepancies and the phonological deficit in reading disability Paper presented at the biennial meeting of Sucicsty far Research in Child Development, Kansas Cityf MO. Saltjner, M, K,, & Gettingel; M. (4985). Social interference skills in learning disabled and nondisabled children. F"syclaology in the Scfzools,2,201-207. Scarbomuglrz,H . 5. (1989a).A comparison of methods for identifying reading disabilities in adults. Unpublished manmcript. Scarbomuglrz,H. S. (1989b). Prediction of wading disability from familial and indi\?idualdiflerences. fotrrllnl of Educa timznl Psychology, 82,101-1 08. Seidenberg, M. S., Bruck, M., FornaroXo, G., (4r Backman, J. (1985). Word recognition processes of poor and disabled readers: Da they necessarily differ? Applied Psyc~~olz'rzgzti~fz'cs~ 6, 161-1 80. Share, D. L., Jorm, A, F., McGee, K,, Silva, P. A., MacLean, K,, Matthews, R,, & Williams, S. (19817). Dyslexia and other myths. Unpublished manuwript. Siegel, L. S. (1984). A Longitudinal study of a hyperlexic child: Hyperlexia as a language distlrder. Nezgr.apsyclzoEogia, 22,577-585. Siegel, L. S. (1988a). Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to the definition and analysis of reading disability. C~nndianfoz-lrrzal of Psycftology, 42,202-215,

Siegel, L. 5. 619881391, Definitional and theowtical issues and resarch on learning disabilities. jclurrzal c?f Learn ing Disnbilities, 23,264-266. Siegel, L. S. (19t3tSa). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. lourlznE qknmipitg Disabilities, 22,4694713,486. S-iegel,L. S. (1989b). Why we do not need IQ test scores in the definition and analyses of learning disability. jourtzal of Le~rningDisabilities, 22,51&518. S-iegel,L. S. (199Qa).IQ and teaming disabilities: R.I.P. In H. L. Swanson (4r B. Keogh (Eds.), Learr-zi~tgdisabilifies: TIteoreticat alzd rtrseerrch issziles. Hillsbale, NJ: Eribaurn. Siegel, L. 5. (1990b). Siegel" reply. [Letter to the editor]. )t?urr-zalof leaf-tzi~zg Disnbilities, 23,268-269,319. Siegel, L. S. (2991). The identification of learning disabilities: Issues in psychoeducationaf assessment. Edzicntion alzd I;nw fi;turrzaf,3,301-313. Siegel, L. S. (15192). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. lournnl ofk~rr-zingDisabiliticrs, 25,64M29. Siegel, L. S, (1993a). Alice in IQ land or why IQ is still irrelevant to learning disabilities. In K,M, joshi and C. K, teong (Eds.), Readirtg disabilities: Diqlilosis and comyonen t pmcesses (pp. 71-84). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Siegel, L. S. (1993b).Phonological processing deficits as the basis of a reading disability. Develaprrzental Reuiezu, 33,246-257. Siegel, L. S. (1994a).The modularity of reading and spelling: Evidence from Hyperlexia. In C. D. A. Brown 9r N. C. Eltis (Eds,), H~ztrdbookof Spelling: Theory, (pp. 227-2481, Sussex, UK: John Wiley. pmcess and irzterz~enfio~z Siegel, L. S*(1994b).Phonological processing deficits as the basis of devebpmentat dyslexia: Implications for rernediation. In M. J. Riddctch (4r G. W. P-iumphreys (Eds.), Cogrzr'tive P I ~ U ~ O ~ S ~ C J Z . O E atzd O ~ ~ cogrzr'iive reFtezbilifnfiun(pp. 379-460).Hove, UK: Erlbaum. Siegel, L. S., & Heaven, R. K. (1986). Categorization of learning disabilities. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognI'Ciz?e,s o c i ~and f neuropsycItologicn1 aspects of Ietlrrzi~~g 2, pp. 95-121). HillsdaIe, NJ: Erlbaum. dis~bilities(VC~I.. Siegel, L. S., & f-iimel, N. (in press). Socic>economicstatus, age and the classification of dyslexic and poor readers: Further evidence of the irrelevancy of IQ to reading disability. Dyslexia. Siegel, 1,.S., (4r Ryan, E-.B. (1988).Development of grammatical ~ensitiviq~ phonological, and short-term memory skills in normally achieving and learning disabled cl-rildren.Dezt~.laprrzentaIPsyclzology, 24,2&-37. Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B, (1989a), The dewelt~pmentof working memary in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child Developnzent, 60,973-980. Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E, B, (1989b).$&types of developmental dyslexia: The influence of definitionat t~ariables.Rendirzg and W?-if&: An I n t e r d i s c i p i lozarnal, 2,257-287, Silva, P. A., McGee, R., & Williams, S. (1985). Sc~rnecharacteristics of 9-year old bays with general reading backwardness or specific reading retardation. fourd try, 26,407421. lznl of Clzild Psycholon n ~ Psyclzia

The Roads We Ha27e Trazleled nnd fhe Patll to fhe I""ulzcr.e

175

Stanovich, K. E, (19%). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Readitzg Researclz Quarterly, 221, 3604017. Stanovich, M, E. (1Cd88a). Explaining the differences beween the dyslexic and garden variety poor reader: The phonological-core variance-difference modet. )t?urr-zalof kgrr-zi~tgDisabililits, 21, 590404, 642. Stanovich, K. E. (398%). Tbe right and wrong places to look for the co>gnitivelocus af eading disability, Rnr2afs of Qsfexia, 38, 45.1-477, Stanovich, K. E- (1992). Discrepancy defhitions of reading disability: Has intelligence Led US astray? Xmdi~zgXesenrck Qzcnrterly, 26, 4-29. Till, N. E, Siegel, L. S., & Maraun, M. (1994). Reading comp~hension:The role of question type and reading abiliv. R m d i ~ gand Witing: An Intetdisciplina~ylournal, 6,387402. Taylor, F-l. G., Satz, P,, & Friet, J. (2979). Developmental dyslexia in relation to ather childhoc~dreading disorders: Significance and clinical utility. Reading Res e a ~ hQtmrlerly, 15,86101. Torgesen, J, K., Dahlem, W. E., & Greenstein, J. (1987).Using uer-batirntext recardings to enhance reading comprehension in learning disabled adolescents. Learning DisabiIitie"L.sc?c~ds, 3,30-38. Tath, G., & Siegel, L. S. (1994)A critical evaluatian of the IQ-achievement discrepancy based definition of dyslexia. In K. van den BospL. S. Sieget, D. J. Bakker; CZr B. L. Share (Eds,), Current dijvectia~s dyslexia resmrclz (pp. 4570). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & ZeitXinger. van der Wisset, A., &c Zegers, E E, (1985). Reading retardation revisited. British Journal cf Dearlqmen id 17sycIzology, 3, 3-49, Yau, M,, Siegel, L, S., & Ziegler, S. (1994). Laptop computers and the learning disabled student. ERS Spectrum, 9,22--30. Yule, We(1973). Differential prognosis of reading backwardness and specific reading retardation. British Journal ~(Educatz'onaEPsyclznlogy, 4$3,24-248.

Developing Reading Fluency in Learning-Disabled Students

In this chapter I focus on Ihe identification and rcf.medial.ionof a difficdy comrnonly encountered by learning-disabled studcnts as they learn to read. 'l-he difficulty to which :Irefer is the lack of readhg fluency--or automaticity. WiIhout autmat-icity students find that- although it is pssible to comprehend a, text, doing so requires so much effort that reading becomes a most unpleasant exprience. AItbough lack of automaticity is experienced by most &uden,tswith a learnjng disability, it is a problem that can be overcome. In this chapter :l present specific techniques that teachers can easily use to deterr~ineif students are decodk~gtext automatically and aiso suggest a variety of techniques for developing this skill. For p ~ s e n purposcls, t we can think of a learning disability as a disorder that hampers learning in a specific domain such as ~ a d i n gAccord. ing to Eggen and Kauchak (1997, p. 164), learr~hg-disabledstuderzts are characterizd by their lack of reading fluency. The followhg scmaricr, which accurately describes the lack of flumcy experielzced by learning-dishled studerzts, was reported by m inner-city St. Paul teacher who had taken a cowtive psychology course with me that included material m automaticity- theory. This teacher was trying to understmd why one of her third-grade students had such a IOW score on the reading portion of the Metrczpolitan Achievement Test, a test that her school district uses ta assess districtwide academic achievement. The test was giver1 early in fall about a month after the students had returncd horn vacation. During classroom discussions, the student who had scored poorly on the reading test showed hirnsdf to be an eager participant, and what he had to say during discussions indicated that he had considerable gcrneral knowledge. He seemed highly motivated to d.o well and attentfed schod ~ g u l a r l y

Developing Rendl'rfgFluenq irz Learning-Disabled Sludenls

177

In order to understand thr nabre of the sh;ldent"s problem, the teacher administered several informal tests that she had learned about in my course, When she asked the student to read ordly from an easy passage, she discol~eredthat his ~ a d i n g rate was slow; there. were mmany errors in word recog~nition;and, most teiljng, there was a lack of expression in his voice. After the student bad read. the passage orally, the teacher asked him to explain what it was about, but he had difficulty =calling what he had read. Next, she asked him to listen while she read the passage to him. Again, she asked him to recall the passage; this tirne he did much better in his comprehensicm and recall. 'This simple diagnostic reading test provided the teacher with several good clues as to why the sludent had done so poorly on the standardized reading test, At least part of the probkm s e e w d attribratatclle to a lack of automatic decocjing skills when reading. The studmt was t-hen referrcd to a school psychologist, who diagnosed, the student as having a learning disability.

The Extent to Which a Reading Disability Can Be Remediated Is a learning disability a ""kiss cJf death,'" hhandicapping coneiition of such grave magnitude that the barriers to lear~ningto read are insurmounthle? The answer to this question is no! b e n tl.lough the learningto-read process may be hard at first for learning-disahled sbdents, with good instruction, opportunities for practice, and suf icicmt: motivation, they can learn to read. well, For example, Fink (1996) interviewed pmmk nent adults who had been diagnosed as dyslexic yountgsters; as seen in Table 8.1, all of them became emhez.rt in their crihosen fields, Fink's interview data revealed some factors that were important in helping them to overilome their handicaps. 'These same factors should be cmsidcred by parctnts and educators who want to help Iearning-disabled students become good readers. The successful dyslexics had nut as children tried to circumvent ~ a d i n as g a way to k m . Alfhough it took them longer to dcvelop f ue~ncyskills, they persisted, and this pcrsjstence led to the practice they needed to develop automtic decoding skils, Eink (1996) notes that although many of the successful dyslexics she interviewed continued to have difficzllty with lower-level decodi~ng skills such as letter identification and phonics, "they eventually developed basic fluency" What the successfut dystexics seemed to share as children was a pnssionate interest i,n a topic they pursued through reading. T h i s intense reading about a favorite subject enhanced their depth of backgrollnd knowledge and, at the same time, enabled them to gain practice, which fostered fluency "By reading in de* about a single domain of knowledge, each became a virtual 'little experthbout a subject" (p.275).

TABLE 8.1 Dyslexic Students Who Overcame Their Reading DifficuLtiies

Brafessiarz Attorney

Names Amy Symons, assistant state attorney, Dade County FL

Biochemist

Rc>naldDavis, National Academy of Sciences, Stanford University Medical school

Businessman

Joe Jones, CEO, Jones Company, Salem, MA Rc>bertKna pp, Hawa rd Medical School, Boston, MA Baruj Benacerraf, Harvard Medical khuol

Neurologist

Charles Bean, Jefferson Hospital, Philadelphia, PA

Physicist

James Bensinger, Brandeis University, Waltharn, MA

Special Educator

Charles Drake, director; IdandmarkSchool, Prides Crossing, MA

Fink's observations (1996) fit nicely with what is k n o w about automat-icity theory and decoding flumcy Even the most advilnced "normal"" reader dcbes not automatically decode LalZ prlnted words, only those that have been identslied previously.n~ehif;h-frequency words, tRose that have been see11 in print over and over again, involve the highest rate of automaticiSy; Stanovich (1986) has written about Matthew effects in reading: Students who read a lot get better and better and those who seldom read get worse and worse, Fink (1996) acknowledges that the redundant text in discipline-specific texts may provide the necessay drill and prac"cice required to develop basic automaticity skills for a large corpus of words. My own research at the Unjversity of M esota on the development of automaticity has shown that virtually all sbdents reach the automatic stage if they persist long enough. Development of automaticity is an individual-difference variable, but the varhbiliw shows up in the amount of tirne and practice regufred to attain automaticity and not im whether one attains this Zevel of &l, Ass~me,for example, Chat learning how to recowize words automatically is a complex skill that can be separated into two stages: the accuracy stage and the automatif stage. Durhg the first, the s t d e n t can recognize prinkd hvords but must app:ly considerable attention and effort At Ihe automatic stage, not only is the student accurate but very Gttle cognithe effort or attention is required in order to recoglnize words. Students differ grcatly in the m o u n t of tirne and practice required to reach the accuracy stage. Wilh ~ p e a t e dpractice at ~adimg,they go be-

Developing Rendl'rfgFluenq irz Learning-Disabled Sludenls

179

yond accuracy to automaticity*Again, the amount of time a d practice needed to attain automaticity varies, but eventually, aall students become cmpetent at autmatically recognizing printed words. At least with regard to h i s important ~ a d i n g skill, students seem tcr be more alike than different. a c e the automaticity stage in word recognition is reached, lemhg-disabled and nonhandicapped students are alike in that they can recopize the printed words with acctrracy, speed, and little efiort. If learnhg-disabled stude~~ts have the drive and motivation to persist and have good instruction and opportunities to practice, almost all of them can become fluent, automatic readers, C)ne of the best predjctors of which learning-disabled student.^ will become fluent readers is the socioeconomic status of the 'family (Rawson, 3968). In general, leami~~g-disabled students from high-socioecon~micin overcoming their hmdicaps status families seem to be more s~~ccessful than students from lower-socioeconomic-status families, primarily because upper-class farrtilies highly value education and have the resources to pay for the extra tutoring and instntctional help needed by learningdisabled students, A Definition and Example of Autarnaticity

I'he gen-d notion that practice is one of the essential p~requisitesfor skilled performance is certainly not a ncw idea. This principle was exp~ssc-din William Tames% ((1890)Prirzciples of Psychulogy: " I f m act became no easier after being done several times, if the careful direc-tion of c~nsciousnesswere necessary to its accomplish~~ent on each occasion, it is evident that the whole activit-yof a lifetime might be confined to m e or two deeds-that no progress codd take place i n developmentf"(p. 37). In Muey's (1908) classic hook The Psychology and 12edagogy uf Readilzg, now considemd to be one of the early precursors to modern cognitive psychology, we can find similar ideas: Perceiving being an act, it is, like all other things that w e do, performed more easily with each repetition of the act. To perceive an entirely new word or other combination of strokes requires considerable time, clc~seattention, and is likely to be imperfectly done, just as when we attempt some new combination of mo>vements,some new trick in the gymnasium or new serve at tennis. In either case, repetition progressively frees the mind from attention to details, makes facile the total act, shortens the time, and reduces the extent to which cmsciousness must concern itself with the process. (p. 104)

Two more recent publications have directed attention to the irrrportance of automaticity A LaRerge a d Samrrels (1974) article explained

from a theoretical position why automatic decoeiing was an essential prerequisite for fluent reading, and Bloom's (1986) analysis of highly skilled performance in reading, writing, and mathematics detailcd how the automization of the lower-order subskills made possible the higher-mder thinking required in these subjects. What Jarnes (189Q),Huey (INS), LaBerge and Samuels (19741, and Bloom (1986) suggest in their writhgs is that azrtnmnficifymay be defined as the nbilify to pt"f0m-l cnmylx skills zuith minimal atlrarfbni-(I the task and with nlinimlrl tfurt. :Now that automaticity has been defined as the abjlity to execute complex pmcesemith little attenticm, an example of automaticity in everyday Life would be helpful. Diving an automohi;le is a complex act that is an important part of life in this country. There arc so many tasks in driving that must be performed quick@ and accurately and all at the same time. First, these are the simple mechanjcs of driving the car, getting it to move, turn, and stop. In addition, there is the joh of monitoring the traffic, stoplights, siliemacls, pedestrians, road sips,and ad\..ertising, and on top of all ths, the driver often listens to news on the car radio or is involved in conversation with a passenger or is thirtking about topics unrelated to the driving task. Performing all these tasks at the same time is possible o d y dter a certain level of automati.city is reached. As a person who bas done research on autamticity for many years, I am cmtinually impressed by hoMi many complex skills can get done simultaneonsly once some of the tasks becom automatized to the point where littlie attention and effort are needed. Two decades ago, whe11 t s e r g e a d Samwls (19712) published their theoretical article on automatic information processing in reading, automaticity was seen as playing a rote only in decodhgf but in the intervening years the role of automaticity in ~ a d i n g has been extended. Automaticity has been shown to be vital in a varittty of comprehension subprocesses such as generating essential inierences while reading (murlow and Vi\n den Broek, 1997) and gaining automatic access to the meanings of words after they have bee11 idel~tilied(Siamuels and Naslund, 1994; Naslund and Samuels, 1992). The Smuels and Naslund article explains in detail how the combinaticm oE slowness and lack of automaticity in gaking access to wosd meanings acts as a contributing factor in the comprehension problems of learning-disabled children. Let me take a moment to explain how the speed and automaticity of accessistg w r d meanings is a factor in readkg comprehension, Imaghe a situation in which gain% access to word maning requires three steps. In step one, the person dsodes the word. In step two, using a mental dictionary, the perso11 locates the wad and its meaning*Since m n y words contah multiple meanings (i.e., are polysemous), step three requires selecting the ccnrect word meaning for the context in which the word is

Developing Rendl'rfgFluenq irz Learning-Disabled Sludenls

181

found. Each of the three steps requires time and copitive resources for its execution. If sdecting word meaning is slow and c o n s m s a disproportioslate share of cognitive resources, it will have a dampen.ing effect on all of the reading pmcesf;(Samuels and Naslund, 1994).

Why Automaticity 1s art Ir;npo&arrt Requirement for Skilled Reading Regardless of how one prefers to teach reading, whether by using a whoLe-lanpage, skilfs-based, or an eclectic approach, virtually everyone agrees that the puvose of reading is to colnprthend the information printed on the page. However, there is a vast difference in the strategies used to construct meaning when one compares beginning and fluent readers. Every act of reading requires decoding the words printed in the text, comp~hendingwhat has been dectded, and paying attention, By dwoding f mean that wl.ten the words are see11 on thc page, the student can pronounce the words either out loud or silently, Another ~ading-related prwess is comprehension. fn order to comprehend the decocied material, the student must access word memhgs and construct a message using hformatim from the page as well as horn the student" own personal knowledge and experience. 'The lhird elemelrt necessary for reading is attentio~~. AttenC.ion may be thought of as the cognitive energy or effort requi"ed to perform tasks such as decoding or comprehending. Both decoding a d comprehension arc difficult, especialfy for beginning readers, and =*ire considerable attention for their proper execution, Unfortunate@, the a m n t of attention is limited. If the demands of decoding and comprehension exceed the attention capacity of the individual, a stategp must be employed. Beghning readers' skills at decoding the material prlintctd on the page are so limited that decoding demands may exceed their attention capacity. Elel~cethey cannot decode and comprehend at the same time. Consequently, they use a clever divide-and-conquer strategy in order to understand vvbat is on the page. First they direct attention to the words in order to decode the material because that is all that can be done with the limited supply of attention available. Then, holding the decoded materid in sho+krm memwy they direct attention to the comprehension process. By switching attention back and forth from decoding to comprchslsi.on, they arc able to understand what is printed on the page; but this switching takes great effort and places a heavy load cm memoy. Samuels, LaBerge, m d Bremer (1978) have demonstrated that the unit: of word recognition for beginning compared to experienced. readers is quite different. For beg ing readers the size of the unit of recopition is

the letter, a unit that most of the time has no meaning. For skilled readers t s to the unit is the entire word, a unit that has meaniing. T'%ese u ~ ~ ihave be held in short-term mmory long enough to construct a meaning fur the text. No wortder beginnil^lg readers and learning-itisabled childwn find the tearnhg-to-read stage a difticulveriod. With practice at reading, the picture changes dramatically. Largely due to extended practice in reading, skilled readers c m decode automatically. In line with the definjtion of automaticity given earlier, they can decode with little attention and effort, They have sufficient attention and cognitive =sources avaitable to handle both the decdlng and the comprehension processes at the same time. Students who decode automaticaIly may find the reading task easier simply because there is less load on memar?/ and what is put into short-term memory is meaningful, h noder to understand the readjng prObllcms students mcomter, it is important to recognke the student's rt~acjingstage (Spear-Swerli~~g & Sternberg, 1994). Some students may be able to decode words accz~rately but not automatically, Lark of automaticity in decoding creates a problem with comprehension. Other students may decode both accurately and automaticatly. mese students may d s o have comprehension difficM1ties, but the cause will be o t h r than a decoding difficulty for example, a lack of pmper background h o ~ i l e d g eof a text topie. Thus for diat;nostic purposes, it is important to distjnguisk between the beginning and fluency s t a p s in rezlding development.

Characteristics aE Automatic and Nonautomatic Pfsdomances In order to understand the development of complex skills such as those involved in reading, as a cmvmience we can separate the learning into stages. 'The begi1min.g stage can be thought of as "contrclled" and the final stage as ""automaticf' (Shiffrim & Schneideq 1977; Schneidcr cYr: Shiffrin, 1977). Controlled processing of a text is slow requires cmsiderable effort and attentbn, and is performed at the conscious level. 'The controlled slage in reading is much like the stage in beginnjng driving when one must direct behavior with thoughts such as 'know the key, now the clutch, release clutch, and mow gas.'" At the automatic level performance is fast, accurate, seemingly effortless, and not under conscious control, Posner and Snydes (1975) have noted that automatic performance usually occurs without intention or awarmess, and since it occurs uncmsciously, it is cliMicdt to suppress or modify. At this point we can extend the dcfhihion of automaticity by stating that in contrast to the beg img stage, the automatic stage involves all of

Developing Rendl'rfgFluenq irz Learning-Disabled Sludenls

183

the tasks being done simultaneously. The prhciple =mains the s m e in many fields of ertdeavctr. In complex activities such as drivhg a car, reading a text, writing a letter at a computer, and reading music and playing it with feeling, the many srthprocesses involved wcur simultaneously after they have each became automatic.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Automaticit-y Tn s u m m r y there are some impressive reasons that skills s h d d be developed to the autmatic level:

* Tasks learned to the automatic level are usually executed with speed, accuracy, and minimal effort.

* M e n a skill is automatic, sufficient attention is a~rail;Ebleto simultaneously perform other tasks.

* Skills learned to the automatic level are often retained for a lifetime and are highly resistmt to memory loss, Ul~fortmately~ automaticity has some negative effects:

* Automatic skills are often difficult to control, suppress, or modify. For example, because skilled readers read automaticaliy, when driving they often find t-hernselves rcading bilfboards rather than payirrg attention to traffic conditions, Or a teacher may habitually scold shdents who use disntpiive behavior to get attention even lhough she k n w s that scolding rchforces the very behavior she wants to discourage. The classic exarnple of how hard it is to modify an automatic respmse comes from the Siroop color-word test. In this test GREEN, for example, is prirzted in blue and the word BLUE is printed in green. Instnactions to a p e r m might be '"gnore the printed word, just is so much response competition between name the calor.'"ere the automatic reading of the prlnted words and.the n a m e of the colors that good readers find this to be a very difficdt task. M a t is most interesting is that poor readers who do not recogni.ze words automatically find this to be an easy task. In fact, the Stroap color-word test c m be used as an indicator ta determhe if a student recognizes words automaticalty* * Usual:ly, automaticity is developed durkg a long period of practice. But even though we may have attained automaticity with words or spellhg patterns we have seen frequently;.those we have not had much experience with can still slow us down. When we encounter such pattern we often resort to decoding

strategies used by nonautomatic readers because it takes less time to be accurate than to attain automaticity AlIhough Logan (1997) has s o m cogcrnt arguments to support his contention that automaticity may develop rather quick@ mder special conditio~~s, irt general we may say that a cmsiderable amoulzt of t i m , effort, and prartice must be expmded to perform a complex task automatically. Often one forgets the separate skills that had to be mstered in order to reach the automatic stage, For example, after long training an expert pediatric cardiologist may be able to listen to an infant's heart-beat and determhe if there is a malfmctioning valve. She may however, have difficulty explaining the separate telltale indicators to medical students. Similarly, readinginstruction experts, who have reached automaticity in ward recogni.tion and comprehension, find that delheating the essential ~ a d i n skills g and the sequence fn which they should be introduced is a most difficult task, one that has contributed to what we call "the readhg pedagogy wars." As stated earlier, the task al: determfnh~gwhat skills have to be learned to attain automaticity is so difficult that it has taken two decades .for the "experts" to realizc that automatic processes are involved in comprehension as well as in worcl rczcowition. Some of the skills we use in cornprrzhcnsion are so automatic that: W are unaware that they even exist, that we are ushg them, and that the skills may be teachable.

Diagnostic: Indicators of Automaticit-y in Ward Recognition FortunateIy for the medical prclfessim, numerous technipt"""exist for assessing peaplef"ealth, rangillg from thermometers and blood pressrtre cuffs at the low-techndogy end to MRXls and computer-assisted cchocar-. diograrns at the other end. Compased to the medical profession, education has few refiable and valid diqnostic procedures..Some years ago, I was a consultant on a project to establi,sh techniques for diagnosing and remediating reading problenns..Une of the irwestigators had just successfuily fhlished a preect in which he had devetoged a computer pmgram that coufd identify heart sorlnds indicating a malfunctioning heart. He ptanned to appIy the s a m approaches and strategies that were successful in the medical field to reading diagnosis. 'l'he first step required that so-called readiing experts be given sjmulated case studies of kids with reading prciblems. The experts were supposed to dagnose each case and commend remediaticm. Two severt? pr"blems arose immediately and stopped the projed. First, there was such low inter-rater reliability that

Developing Rendl'rfgFluenq irz Learning-Disabled Sludenls

185

the investigatclr was hard pressed to know which diagnosis alld suggested remediation of the probable came of the reading diificulty was correct, Second, when the same case reappeared in a somewhat different fnrm, there was also low fntra-rat= reliabitity It wodd be interesting to repeat that procedure aga,in to see how much progress, il any,has been made in the intwening years. Although there are no formai standardized tests of automaticity, fortumtely there are a nunnber of informal m d easy-to-use procedurcls that can help teachers decide if a studmt recognizes words automatically. One 1 commend to teachers is to select three ~ a d i n g passages at the stude~~t's estimated rclading level. These passages should be unfamiliar to the student, of the same approximate length, and the same level of ~ a d i n gdifficulv*The lmgth of the passages can be as short: as a halfpage or as long as several pages depending on the student" ability to read., Une of the passages is for silent reading; one is for oral rcading; and the third, not read by the sbdent but by the teacher, is for listenh~gcomprehension. Far the silent- and the oral-reading passages the student should not be allowed to preread or practice the passage. Remember, this is a testing situation anti not a teaching sihtation. The goal is to ascertaill if the skdent processes words automatically, and practke will &er the results. Clie have found that even college students may be unable to decode automatically. C)n the text used for d e n t reading, the instrwtions would be, "Read this silently to yourself just one time, As soon as you are finished reading, tell me everything that ycru can remember." Ori the text used for oral reading, the lnstsuetions are, "Read this out loud to me. As soon as you are done :I want you to tell me eveqthing that you can remember." For both passages the teacher should use the ctlmprehensicm-recall protocol to ohserve the degrw to \zrhich the student can understand and recall the text information, If the student omits passage details in t:he recall, the teacher can ask questions. For the oral reading test the teacher should =cord the folXowing additional information: oral word-recognjtion errors, word-per-minute reading rate, estimate of oral expression, and student's comprehension. :lf possible, a tape corde er fnconspicuously placed can be used for recording the shadent's oral reading and recalf of the three texts, For tbr test of listening comprehension, the instmctiom are, "I am going to read to you. I want you to listen carefully became cvhen f an? done 1 want you to tell me as much as you c m remember of what 1 read to ysu.'"ese three informal tests will pmvieie the teacher with a wealth of inbrmtion that can bc used for diagn0st.i.c purposes. The rationale for the oral-readhg test is that it demands simultaneous decoding and comprehension. n u s only students who decode automatically wiil have good recall and read with expression. 'The latter is clne of

the best indicators of automaticity in decodhg. It is most inte~stingthat student.^ who read a text for the first time with no expressjon often read the same text expressively after they bave reread it several tirnes, a technique known in the field simply as ""repeated reading" (Samuels, 1979). The word-recowition and readhg-speed scores provide additional evG dmce of autmaticiv The silent-readjng passage is included because automatic behaviors such as mading can be dismpted if the conditiom of testing are different from the conditions under which the skill is usually practiced. For example, after the third grade, there is little oral, reading; most of the training a shdent gets is in ~ a d h silently. g W e n W ask a student. who normally silent reads automatically to read orallly for a test, the task requifements may be suificiently wfamiliar that the performance is compromised. Mio see similar loss of automaticity when a student MIho has praeticed a speech to perfection in his room discovers that his speech is poorly presented when given in a strange auditorium to m unfamiliar audience. Athletic coaches are familiar with the loss of automatic skills whesz they have to be performed under stressful cmditions in locations unfamiliar to the athletes. fn order to help athletes perform their best, coaches give them a few days to practice in their new surroundings (Logan, 1997). Generally, an oral-reading word-mcognition error rate of more than 10 pwcent indicates the student is probably at the accuracy staget, If the comprehe~zsio~~-recall score is much greater for the liste~zhg-comprehe~zsion text than for the other two, decoding the text likely has interfered with comprehm&i"". When the ~ y u i ~ r n e to n tread and etecocie at the same time leads to a decremcmt in comprehensim, W have mother indicator that the student is not automatic at decoding,

Remediating Wrd-Recognition Problems Associated with Lack of Automaticity. Followhg several basic rules will help stude~ztsdeveloip reading skills to the automaticity level of decoding: Students must have lrnowledge of pbQ"jcq that is, know how to somd out words, in order to be at least accurate at word recognition. a Accuracy in word recognition is a necessary conditjon fnr fluelnt reading, but it is not enough, In order to become fluent readers, studentri must go beyond accwcy tc:,automaticity-and this =quires lots of rclading. * Building self-esteem and motivation is important in keeping students on task. Books that are of interest to sbdents and at a

Developing Rendl'rfgFluenq irz Learning-Disabled Sludenls

187

their ~ a d i r r glevel mcourage the practice needed for both accuracy and automticity Now for some additional suggestions. Ask p u r students how one excels at any sport, such as basketball, sEk1g, w~estling,or at playing a musical instruxnent such as the piano, They will all acknowledge that the route to competence is practice. Students should know that the same prirrciples work in b e c m h g good readers. A. few students will acquire the mdim.ents of automaticity by the end of first grade; those who have difficulty leaming to read may not acquirt~,this level of skill until the fourth or fifth gradc, With good instruction and lots of practice, automaticity in decoding is a reasonable goal. Encourage sbdents to read more by choosing books that i n t e ~ sthem t for recreational wading on their own. Don't ask, for book reports on their independent reading; this acts d y as a dishcentive. Encentive systems as simple as a gold star or a check after their names for each book read can also be used as encot~ragement. .A simple, effective technique for developing automaticity in word =copition has been =cognized in nearly l011 published reports by Rsearchers in the reading field. 'This method, as mntioned earlier, is known as 'kepeated rcadjng." D was developed by Samuels (1979) as a practical application of automaticity themy. Although it has become the most universally used met-hod of remedial reading instruction, it has one drawback: Rcadhg rates and word-recvition errors are put on charts, and thus the technique is labor intensive anci usually ~quircrsadult help. We need a simple method Chat captures the advmtages of repeated reading as it is usually prarticed in remdial reading pul-out programs, The god is to have students, either alone or in pairs, do their own repeated rclading, Icavhg the teacher or teachjng aid free to do other Ihings. Of course, students will need some instruction on how to use the method, but in time they should be able to work independently. 'I'his approach is what Singer and Donlan (1989) called ""phase out the tewher and phase in the learner." In mother approach to repeated readhg, the student reads a passage three to four times and the11 moves on to the next portion of the text. No charting of reading speed or errors is done. The FRdependent repeated ~ a d i n gcan be done with audio assist: The student listtzns to someane read the passage out loud and then practices rereading the passage on his own several times. The rclreadhg can be done alone or in pai.rs, m e student listening while the other reads out loud, foflowd by reversal of roles. One final recommendation is in order, Recall Fir~k"(1996) study, mentioned in the beg ing section of this chapter, of successful adults w l ~ o

were disposed as having dyslexia as chitdrm. 'I'hese children continued to read despite the difficulty they were having, and through perseverance, they overcame their handicaps. At present, educationd practice runs counter to E'ink's hdings. Modifications are often made im the instruction for rclmedid and special education students so that they get their information verbdly rather than through reading. Cnnseyuently, they read less and less and slip behind in reading with each gassing year. ts be encouraged to read more as a way to overcome These s t u d e ~ ~should their handicaps.

The ability to recognize words automaticaily is an important prerequisite for the reading t a b one faces as an adult because it. allows the shadclnt to decode and comprehend the text simultaneously# thus reduchg memory had and the effort required for reading. Two routes to automaticity in decodir?g are to practice reading easy texts and to use a mowied form of repeated readmg, Skdmts who have a learning disabiXjt)r often experience difficulty l e a m i ~ ~tog read with some degree of autornaticify*This handicap can. be overcome with proper motivation, instruction in wordrecognition skills, and extended opportunities to practice reading, References Bloom, B. S. (19%). Automaticiq: The hands and feet of genius. Edgcationaf Leadership?70-7'7, Eggen, E, and Kauchak, D. (199"7. Edztmfional Psyctzufogy: W~zdozvson Clnssmms (3rd. Ed.). Upper Saddle a v e r , NJ: Prentice Elall. Fink, R, P. (1996). Successful dyslexics: A constructivist study of passionate interest in reading, lvurrlat of Adolescent and Adzrlt Literacy, 39(4), 268-280. Huey, E.B. (1908). The fiyefiology and Pedagogy of Readirzg. Cambridge, MA: Macmillan; Reprinted by N.1.T. Press, 1968. james, RT.(1890). The Prl'ncr'ples of PJsyclzology. New tlork: Haft. Logan, D. (1997). Automaticiq and Reading: Perspectives from the instance theory af automatization. Readirtg and Writitzg Qunrferly:Overc.comitzgLwrrzing Dqiculfies 13,2, 123-146. Naslund, J., and Sarnuels (1992). Automatic access to word saltnds and meaning in decoding written text. Re~dingarzd Writirzg Q~arferly:Overco~rtr'ngLear~ring Drficulfies, 2, 135-156. Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R, L. Solso, (Ed.), 1!nfornzntion pracessizzg and cognifion: The Layoln Sympasitlm. Hillsdale, Nq: Erlbaurn. Rawson, M. B. (1968). Dcvelapmental Lnnguagc Disnbilifies: Adztff Aeco~rzplist;lz~rzents of DysIexk Boys. Baitinnclre: Johm Hc~pkimPress.

Developing Rendirlg Fluenq irz Learning-Disabled Sludenls

189

Samuels, S. 1, (1979). The methad of repeated reading. The Reading Teaclzcr, 39, 403408, Sarnuels, S. J., LaBerge, D., and Bremer, C. (197%). Units of word recognition: Evidence for developmental changes. Joz-lrrzalof Verbal Legr~ingand &&nl Bel~avior~ 17;715-720. Sarnuels, S. J. and Naslund, J. (1994). Individual diffewnces in reading: The case Learning Difliczrlfor lexical access. Rmding alzd Wril-i~zgQzmrterly: Overco~.rti??g ties, 4,285-296. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R, M, (1977).Cantrofled and automatic human information processing: I, Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review 84, 24 6 . Shiff-rin,R. M., & SchneiderfW. (1977). ControXIed and automatic human infc~rmatian processing: IT. Perceptual learning, automatic attmding! and a general theory. Psyct~okogicalReview/ 84(2), 127-1 98. Singel; H., and Donlan, D, (1989). Readi~zgand L e n r r - z i ~ gText. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Assc>ciates. Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R, 1, (1994). The road not taken: An integrative theoretical model of reading disability. Journal of tearailkg Disabilities, 2;7(2) 91-103. Stanovich, K. E, (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy Readirlg Resealreh Qtmrlerly, 21, 360406, ThurXowI R*, and Van den Brc)ek, E (199'7). Automaticity and inference generation during reading comprehension. Readkg arzd Wrifing Qzatrrlerly: Overcoming Lmrnir-zg Dificulties, 13(2),165-1 84.

This page intentionally left blank

PART THREE

Contextual Approaches

This page intentionally left blank

Learning Disabilities as Organizational Pathologies

The common view of organizations is that they are merely social tools, mechmisms that societies use to achieve goals that are beyond the reach (Parsons, 1960). But organizations do more than of individual citiae~~s achieve social goals: The nature and needs of organizations shape the very goats that society uses them to achieve (Allism, 1971; Scott, 1981). For example, atthough we seek ""health" when we visit the hospital, what we get is "medical care." We are encouraged to see these outcomes as synonymous, of course, but there may be no ~ l a t i o nbetween them, or the relat-ion may be negathe; more mdical care can r a d t in less heal% (Illich, 1.976). Like healtln, education is a social goal that is shaped by the medium of an orgmizatim; society lvants ""education,'" but what it gets is a particmla kind of "schooling," one that, for good or ill,is shaped by the type of organization that is used to prwide it. In this ch"pted consider the kind of schooling that conventional school orgmizations provide and, based on this analysis, recmceptualize the nature, diagnosis, and treatment of learning disabilities from m organkational perspective. As the title indicates, my main cmtentim is that learnjq disabilities are best thought of as organizational pathologies rather than as intrinsic human pathologics. By making this assertion, 1 am not dellying that there aro students who have what aro known as learning djsabiiities or that i,n mny cases learning disabilities are caused by a patholugical, condition known generally as central nervous system dysfmctim, Rather, :l am arguhg that the very notion of pathoiogy has outlived its usefuhess in the ficfd of spwial education and that learning disabili.tiesprofessionals and advocates should drop it as a guide to prartice and advocacy.

194

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

In the flrst section I trace tbr pathological view of learning disabilities to the theories and assmptions that have shaped and legitimized the field of special education in the twentieth century Then 1prcsent a structural analysis of the kind of schoohg that conventicmal school orgmizations provide. In the third section I use this analysis to reconsider the validrty m d utility of special, education"^ gmundjng assumptions from an organizatictnal pcrlrspective. As part of my stmctural analysis of cmventional schod organizations I also introduce an ailernative structure for schools, one that in the iourth section I c l a h not onIy makes education mow effective and eyuitable for ail students but turns learnh~gdisabjlities into an asset rather than a liability for schod organizations and public education as a whole. fn the concluding section I justify this alternative structure by showing h o ~it, makes possible tbe kind of schooling that is needed for Che emerging economic and plilical conditions of the twenty-f irst century. My aim is to persuade special education professionals and learning disabilities aei\iocates to shift their focus from forming cmvmtional scbool organizations (including the special education system) to replacing them with this alternative form. Such an undertaking, I contend, should emphasize politicaf and economic arg tional excellence over moral arguments for educatimal equity

Special Education's Grounding Assumptions Professional practices (what professionals do) and discourses (what they think, say, read, and write about what tbey do) are gromded in a network of anonymous, historically situated assumptions that organize and give meaning to professional thought and action (Cherryholmes, 1988; Kuhn, 1970). The assumptions are anmymous because they are prelnised on largely unquestioned theories; they are historically situated, rather than uni:versal or context free, because they arc human constructions, temporarity valid and usefd products of a particular time and place (see further on). Ultimately I want to question the validity and utility of the assumptions that ground spedal education practices and discourses by considering them and the very notion of student disability from an organizational perspective. In this section I introduce these assumptions and the tkories upon which they are premised, paying pmticdar attention to the way they have shaped the ccmventional understmding of learning disabilities. According to a number of authors (Bogdan & KugeImass, 1984; Mercer, 11973; Rst & Harrell, 1982; Skrtic, 1986, 1991a; Tomlinson, 19821, speciai education practices and djscollrses are grounded in the follokving assumptions.

1. Shtdent disability is a patholngicaf cmdition. 2. Diag~nosisof studelnt disability is ob~ediveand useful to students so identified. 3. Special education is a rationally conceived and coordinated system of servi,ces that belnefits djag~nosedstudents. 4. Progress in special education is a ratimal-kchicaI undertaking, an evolutionary process of incremmtafly improving conventional models and practices..

'The first two assmptions have two theoretical sources. 'The first is the historical dontinaslce of biological theories of huntan pathology (from medicine) in the field of special education (Bogdan 8r Knoll, 1988; Mercer, 1973), a situation that certainly holds for the area sf leamhg disabilities fsee Kavale & Farness, 1985a; Rist & Hatrrell, 1982). Ziirtlaally all defnitions of learning disabilities identify the cause of the prhlem, as m intrinsic humm pathology (Torgesen, 1986), and this is so largely because of thc dominant role played by the medical profession in che development of the field of learning disabilities both historically (Hallahm & Cmickshmk, 1973; Wiederholt, 19"i) and today (Lerner, 15388). The second sot~rceis the confotxnding of biological theories of palhdogy from medicine and behavioral theories of deviance k m psychology (Mercer, 1973; Skrtic, 19861, which occurred first in the field of mental retardation and then later inthat of learning disabilities. As Mercer (1973) explained with mgard to the cmfounding of these theories ir7 the fittld sf mental retardation, thr pathological model is bipolar m d evaluali.ve. It defines normal and abnormal according to observable biologiral processes; those that interfere with Life are "bad" ((pathology) and tbose that enhance it are " p o d " fithealth). The behwioral or statistical modcl fmm psychology d e h e s devimce in terms of vasance from a population mean. It is evaiuatively neutral; whether being above or bduw average on a particular attribute is good or bad depends on a social, definitjon. According to Mercrer, both nnodels are used to defhe mental retardation-the pathological model for assessing biological symptoms and the statistical model fnr assessing behavioral manifestations, which are not comprehensible under thc pathologjral model. Mthough some forms of mental retardation are associated with ubservable patterns of biological symptoms (i.e., syndromes) anci thus art. compnlhcnsible under the pathological model, the vast majority of individuals labeled mentally retarded show no biological siws, 117 these instances, a htw score s n an intelrigence (IQ) test is accepted at-; a symptom of pathology a conceptwl transposition that tursts behavioral patterns into pathological,signs.

196

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

The implicit logic that underlies this transEt>rmationis as fc~llaws:Low I Q = ""bad h American society: a social evaluation. ""Bd" = pathology in the pathulc>gicatmodel. Therefrjre, I c w IQ = pathology. Thus, IQ, which is not a biological manifestation but is a behaviaral score based on responses to a series of questions, becomes conceptual1y transpc~sedinto a pathological sign carrying all of the implicatiom of the pathalogical madel. (1973, pp. 5-61

Although Mercer limited her criticism to the disability classification of m m t d retardation, the learnjng disabilities classificatim is open to the same type of criticism (see Rist & H a r ~ l l 1982). , This is so because, as I:.,erner (1.988) noted, ""in, many cases the neurological condition [that causes fearnjng disabilities] is difficult, if not irmpossibte, to ascertain by medical examination or external medical tests. Often, therelcsre, the central nervous system dysfunction is prest~medand d e t e r ~ ~ h ethrough d observation of behavior'" (p. 10). The primary difference, of course, is that the behaviorat obsemation used to determine learning disabilities is a low score on an achievement test rather than an IQ test. Paraphrasing Mercer, the implicit logic that underlies the transformation for learning disabilities is as foll~ws:LOWachievement = '%adffin American society, a social evaluation. "Bad'" = pathology in the pathological model. Therefore,low achievement =. pathology. In the case of learning disabilities, then, academic achievement, which is a behavioral manifestation and not a biological symptom, is conceptually transposed into a pathological sign that carries all. of the negative implications of the pathological model. The problem with biological and behavioral theories of deviance (she or confounded) is that by their very natu~r,they locate the cause of the prob1l.m within the person and thus tend to iporl, causal factors that lie in the larger social context in which human differences occur. Moreover, this problem is reinforced by the last tvvo assumptions, which in effect tak. the organizational context of schooling fnr granted, thus excllading it as a causal factor wlative to student djsability. This is so because these assurmptims are derived from the theory of organi.zational rationality The term "rationa1ity'"ere does not refer to the cclmmm m broad sense of rationality that is, to thoughtful, reasoned, or intelligent action (as opposed to irrational or ioolish action). Rather, it refers to the narrow sense of ""tecknicai" mratnality or functional effickncy, that is, to "the e x t e ~to ~ twhich a series of actions is organized in such a way as to lead to predetermined goals with maxixnum efficiency" ((Scott, 1981, pp. 57-58). Given this narrow smse of rationality, then, the theory of organizational rationality asslrmes that orgmizations are technicdy effick~~t means to achieve prespecified goals (Pfeffer, 1982; Seott, 1981) and that improving or changing them is merely a rationat-technical pmcess of in-

creasillg the efficiency of an existhg system incrementally rather than changing the system i,n more fundamental ways or replacing it: with a different one (Skrtic, 1988b). Although the pafrhological view of studmt disability stems from a canceptual confusion withh the field of speial education, the rational view of school organizations comes from a similar confusion in the field of educational administration. Shce its inception, educational administration has been domiaa.t.ed by the notion of "scien.t.ifiemanagememtf~(Callahan, 1"362), an extremely narrow view of organization and management p r e m i ~ don the t b e o ~ of orgmizational rationatity Scientific management is a method for using standardiatim to incsease the efficiency of industrial orgaslizations (fractorics), what :Irefer to below as '"machinebureaucracies." With their great success in industry, however, scientgic management: and the .factory model became social norms in early twent:& eth century America (Haber, I964), unquestioned standarcis for the most efficient way to organize and manage all crrganizations, including schools ((Cdlahan, l96%),As a result, when industrialization, immigration, and compulsory school attendmce produced large nurnbers of students who failed to thriwe in traditional ctassrooms, the problem of school failure was framed as two related problems-hefficieM (nonrational) organizations and defectfie (pathological) students. Given this interprtrtaticm, educaticmal admh~istratorsused thc? pri~~ciples of scientific management: to m&e schools more efficienl by stmdardizing the work of teachers and removisrg the ""dfectirie" "udents horn their classrooms (see SSkrtic, 39511a). From the perspective of scientific management, then, special education was a rati.ona1 means (narrow semse) trc, ""srvef"athological students by simply containjng them within a separate "spedal" education system (Lazerson, 1983; Sarason & Doris, 3979; and further 811)

By considering speciai education's grounding assumptions from m organizational perspective, I wmt to question the sense oE objectivity and rationality that they imply and propose the follnwing set of aternative assumptions as a guide to practice and.advocacy in the field of learning disabilities. I. Learning disabilities are orgmizational pathologies. 2. P)ial;nosis of learning disabilities is subjective and harmful to st~de1zt:sand to public education as a whole. 3. Special eduration is a nonrational and uncoordinated system of services that benefits schod orgmizations. 4. Progress in special education is a nornational undertaking, a revolutionary process of fundamntally replackg cmventimal school organizations.

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

198

As a philosophi-1 pragmatist, I am not concerned with *&er the cmvmtional assulnptions are right: or w o n g but with whet-her they are useful today as a guide to practice and advocacy in the field of learning disabilities (see Skrtic, 1991a, 1995~).That is, atthough the convmtional assumptions may have served an important (largely political) purpose in the past (see Robinson, 1995), 1 am arguing that they have outlived their usefulness and that lgarning disabilities prdessionals and advocates shot~1dadopt the alternative assumptions because they are more useful for serving the best interests of all students, whethrrr or not they have g cfisabilities (pathological or not), and of society as a whole.

School Organization and Change Although educational administration largely remains tied to scientific management and the machine bureaucracy mode1 (btes, 1980; Foster, 19811; Weick, 1982b),=cent developments in the social sciences have pmdueed a number of new theories of organization and change (see Burrell & Illorgan, 1979; Pkffer, 1982; Scott, 1981), many of which arc applicable to schools (see Skrtic, 1987, 1988b, 1991b). In this section I use two of these newer theoregcal perspectives-configuration theory (Miller & Mintzberg, 1983; M h t b e r g , 1979, 1983) and institutional themy (Mcyer & Rcrwm, 1977,1978; Meyer & sett, 1983; Meyc.r, 19m)-to characterize the structure of convelntional school organizations and the way they respond to student diversity and demands for change.! f i e central idea in configrrration theory is tbat organizatim stntcture themselves into a s m d num,ber of somewhat naturalty occufring configurations accorcfhg to the means they employ to divide and coordinate their work. Frc,m this perspective, the strudure of an organimtion can be understood as "the mm tot& of Ihe ways in wfiich it divides its labor into distinct tasks and then achieves coordination among them" (Mintzberg, 1979, p. 2). Applying this insight to the study of organizations yields several basic configurations, two of which-muchhe h-tlreaucr~cyand prufessiillznl bltren~~cracy-areparticu%arIyhelpful for understandjng the nature and functionh~gof conwentional schod organizations; a third configuration, the udhacracy, is helpful fctr conceptuaizing an alternative to the conventionat orgmizational form. As we will see, given the means they use to divide and coodinate their work, sehools configure thernseltves as professional bureaucracies even though, undcr the influence of scientific mmagemmt, they are managed and gol~ernedas if they were machine bwaucracies (Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Weick, 1982b). According to institutional theory; schools deal with this contradiction by maintajning two relatively independent or ""dcoupled" sstmacbres-an inner professional bureaucracy structure that corre-

sponds to the ways they divide and c o d i n a t e their work and an outer machhe bureaucracy strudure that co~nformsto the social norms of scientific management and the hctory model: (Meyer (fE ROW^^ 1977,1978; Skrtic, 1987).

and Professional Bureaucracies Organizations configure themselves as machine bureaucracies when their work is simple enough to be divided through mfionnlizatia~z,a prwess in which the total work activiq is task anatyzed into a sequmce of relatively routine subtasks, each of MIhich can be prcspecified and done by a separate worker (think of an assemb%ytine). The process of ra" tionalization represents the operationalizatim of the narrow sense of ""rtional" horgmjzationseWork that can be rationalized in this sensc is coordinated through fon~falizntion, that is, by smdardizing the procedures fnr doing each subtask and specifying precise rules for each w r k r to follow in completing his or her assiglned work activi?. Mrhm their work is too complex to be rationalized and formalized, organizations cmfitgttre themselves as professional bureaucracies. The best exaxnples of this configusation are organizations that do complex clierntcentered work, such as hospitals, law firms, unjversities, and public schools, Zn these organizations, division of labcrr is achieved thrtlugl-t 5pecializcnticl~,a process in which clients are distributed among the workers on the basis of a match betwerrn the specialized skills of the worker and the presumed needs of the client. Thus in. hospitals, for example, no single physician can s e n e the needs of every pat-ien-t.So we find cardiofogists, neurologists, and gynecologists, each of whom specializes in Ihe hcrvvledge and skills necessary to serve patients who are pr"-"mum"d to have a particurn type of medical, need. Givcn the same logic oE spedalizati,t in schoois we h d primary, elennentary, and secondary teachers as well as further suhject-area specialists at the middle school and secondary levels. And, of course, at all levels of public education. we find teachers of students who are bilingual, gifted, or economically disadvantaged as well as teachers of students with behavior disorders, mental retardation, or learning disabilities, Complex work that: can be dividcd among the workers through specialization is coordinated through prufessiorzalz'zatz'orx,that is, i~~tensive education and socialization carried out in professional schools such as medical schools, law schools, and schools or colleges of education, Whereas formalization standardizes the work process through rules, professionalization standardizes the knowledge and skills of the worker through education and socialization. libgether, an organization" division of labor and means of coardination shape the nature of tbr interdegmdence, or ""cupling,'hmclng its Diflerepzces Bedzueen *chine

200

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

workers ('T'hompsm, 1967; Weick, 19%; 4982b). Because machine b e a u cracies divide and coordinate their work through rationalizat-ion and formalization, their workers are tigjttly coupled, a situation in which, like litnks in a chain, they are highly dependent on one another. In a professional burearncracy, however, specialization and professionnlitio create a lousely corcpled form of interdepmdence, a sikation in which each professional w o r k closdy with her or his clients but only loosely with other professionals, Specialization and prokssionalization virtuatly e h hate the need for coordjnation ammg professionals because each one does virtually all aspects of the work with his or her assigned clients. What Iittle cowdinat-ion is needed is achieved by each pmfessional specialist h a w i n g rought)i what every other one is doing,given their common prokssional education and socialhation within a tjiwn field.

As a means of coordination, frtrmalization is premised on mi~nimizing worker discretion by separating the09 from prartice. The theory behind the work 117 machi~~e bureaucracies rests with the managers and engineers who rationalize m d formdize it; they do the thilnking and l.hc workers simply foiIow the rules. Conversely, pmfessionalization is premised on maximizing discretion by unfting theory and practice in the prdessional. This is mcessary becarnse the antbiguity of client-centered work q u i r e s professionals to adapt the theory to fit the actual needs of their clients. h principle, professic,nals know the theory behind their work and have the discretion to adapt it to the mique and changing needs of their clients. In practice, however, p r o f e s s i o n a a t o circurnscribes the work of professionals in two w a p . First, professionalizati.on provides professionals with only a fil~ite repertoire of standard practices that am matched to a particular set of presurned client needs. For example, no elementary teacher has an infinite nulnber of practices in her or his repertoire for teaching subtraction with regrmping SO that she or he can teach any student (wit-h any leaming neects) the place-value concepts, number facts, and regrouping skills to perform the subtractio~nalgorithm for problems such as ,346 rnirrus 179. Elementary teachers may have one or two such practices in their repertoires, and these are most likly standard teaching practices designed for typical Iearners. C)f cotlrse, Eke alil professionals, teachers are assumed to have the ahiljt). and the discretion to adapt &eir practices to the actual. needs oE their sbdents. But the degree to which teachers can adapt their standard practices has limits; teachhg practices are not infitritely adaptable even if kachers have unlimited d i s c ~ t i mand they rarely do (see , fur&er on). h schools, this mems that a student whose needs fall outside

his or her teacher" repertclire of practices or beyond the bounds of the teacher's ability or opport-unity to adapt must be sent to a different teaches. That is, ghen the log2 of specialization, the student must be sent to a different specialist whose repertoire presumably contains the required practices. The second way that professionalization circumscribes professional work is that by desip, it resdts in convergent t h i n h g and deductive reasonjng, a si,tuation in kvhich "the professional conhnses the needs ol his clients with the skills he has to offer [them]" "htz'berg, 1979, p. 374). A fully open-ended process-ne that seeks a tntly creative solution to each unique need-requires a problem-solving orientation premised 011 innovation rather than standardization. But professionalition is based on the standardization of skills, a process that prepart-s all professionals, including teachers, to functinn largely as performers, not prohlern solvers, Professionals ordindly do not invent new practices; they perfect the standard practices in their ~pertcliresby perfoming &em over and over again (Simon, 1977; Weick, 1976). Instead of accommodating ditiersity, then, teachers tend to screen it out either by forcing their students" needs into one of their standard practices or by forcing them out of their classrooms into a professional-client relationship with a difierent educational specialist (see Permw, 1970; Segd 1974; Skrtic, 1988b).

Munagizzg Professiul.~n l Btlreatkcracics Like Machine Bureaucracies Given the dominance of scientific management in the fktd of educational aciministration, schoots art^ managed (Clark, 1985; Weick, 1982a) and grrverncd (Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Nintzherg, 197"3)as if they wcre machine bureaucmcies even tl?ough rationalization and particularjy formatization (i.e., standardization thmugh rules) art- ill-suited to the techical dmands of doing complex client-ce~~tered work. In principle, this forces the p r o f e s s i d bureaucracy to perform. like a machhe bureaucracy because, by design, rationalization and formalization separate theory from practice, thus violating the di,scretionary logic of professiondization. This is a prohlem in schools because complex work cannot be coordinated through rules ""except in misguided ways which program the wrmg behaviors m d measwe the wrong outputs, forcing the professionals to play the machine bureaucratic gam satisQing tbe standards instead of servhg the clients. . . . ?"he individual needs ctf the shdentsslocv learncrs m d fast r w d and urban-as well as the individual styles of the teachers have to be subordinated to the neatness of the system" (Mintzberg, 19V, p. 377).

202

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

Rules take many forms in schools, including mandated textbook series, guides, stmdardized tests, and even bell schedules. required c~~rriculum They arc a problem because they reducer teachers-iscretion and thus the degree to which they can adapt their practices to fie needs of their students; thus fewer students can be rebined in their classrooms. For example, imagine that an elementary teacher has two practices for teaching subtraction with grouping. 'Thefirst practice is a largely symbolic approach h which the teacher uses standard p r h t materials m d a vari.ety of paper-pencil exercises. This approach worlcs well with 24 of 27 sht&nts, those vvho understand pface value and have mastered most of the basic subtraction facts, Tjne second practice is a constructivist appmach in which the teacher uses manipulative devices and trading games to demcmstrate glace-value concqts and teach subtraction facts. It works well with the remajning 3 students who do not understand place value as well and have not maskred very many of the basic subtraction facts. 'I'he teacher is crrmfortaMe using either practice and is quite successful with students under both instructional formats. In fact, using the conatructivist approach the teacher has been abfe to accelerate the learning of the 3 stztdents, keep them relatively close to the other 24 students in terms of rate of concept and skill development, m d thus avoid the need to refer the 3 students for remedial or special education services. NOW, imagjfte that fie teacher% schod district adopts a new mathemat-ics textbook scries and requires all elementary teachers to use it and its largely syrnbolic approach, accompanying standardized tests, and rather quick-paced scope and sequence specifications. Under this requirement-in effect, a new set of rules Chat forces the teaelner to play the machine bureaucratic game of satisfying the district's standards instead o f servhg the sfudlrzfs' instructicrnal needs-fie teacher does not have the cliseretion to use the constructivist agpmach with the 3 students who need it even tho~lghhe or she has this pmckice-the very ppmckz'ce these stzrdents ~zeed-it-l his or her repertoire of skills. As a result, fie teacher has no choice t i ~ i s t his or her "qmbolic but to force the studelntsf " c o ~ ~ ~ t r ~ cneedsf%to practices," Emtually, of course, the 3 students fall filr enough behind their classmates fiat fie teacher has no other choice but to force them out of her classroom and into a differetnt professional-client relationship with a mother vecialist, most XikeXy a learning disabilities specialist, who is presurned to have the prartice the students need in her c ~ his r repertoire of skills. Fortunately, however, rationalization and formlization do not work completely in schook. According to institutional theory, misguided attempts to rationalize and formalize teaching arc largely contained in schoolshachine bureaucracy structure, which is decoupled from the classrooms of their professional bureaucrxy structure, where the work is

actually done, That is, the outer machine bureaucracy structure of schools acts largely as a myth, a collectinn of symhols (formd rues) and ceremonies (ahinistrative procedures) that tend to be ignored in classrooms because they threatcn the discretionary logic of prokssionalization. As Meyer and Rowan (1977) explained, "Decoupling e11abXes organizations to mhtairr standardized, legitimating, formal structures while their activities wary in Rsponse to practical considerations'" (p. 357). That is, the outer structure protects the school's legitimacy by giving it the appearance of the machine bureaucracy that centrai office administrators and the public expect while atlowing the school to do its work according to the localized judg~n,entsof its teaebcrs. Nevertheless, although this d e coupled, two-structure arrangement protects teachers-discrcltion sornewhat, it does not work completety either because rczgardless of how cmtsadictory they may be, sationdization and formalization require at least overt conforniw (Mintzberg, 1979; DaXtm, 1959). Decoupled s t m c t u ~ s notwithstanding, the rationalization and formalization associated with the scientific managemnt- approach to educational admjnistration further circumscribe professional discretion; thus dtimately, w r e students are forced out of general educaticm classrooms and into the special ebucation system.

Professional B~reazaeraciesand Change Both the machine bureaucracy and the professiond bureaucracy are premised on the principlJ of standardization, Mthi& means that in principle, both are inherently nonadaptable st-ructurcs,i2lthoragl-t change is resisted in both configurations, it can be forced on a machine bureaucracy by wrationalizhg and formalizing its work processes, that is, by using a "rationat-technical" approach to change in which "rationdf?effers to the narrow sense of kproving the "techni.caYf rraionality or functional efficimcy of the system through further standadization. However, when a professional bureaucracy is required to Change, it cannot respond by m a h g such rational-technicd adjustments in its rules because coordination of its work rests within each professional, by way of education and soci.alization$not in its official but &coupled rules, Nevertheless, because schools are managed and governed as if they were machine bu~aucracies,attempts to change them typically have foflowed the ratioml-technical approach that is used in factories (see House, 1979; Wise, 1979). Applied to school org""i"ations, the rational-technical approach assumes that changes inor additions to the existing fnrmaliza.t.ion(rues) in schools will result in changes in the way teachers do their work. However, becaux the formalization fn schools is largely &coupled f m the

204

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

actual w r k of teachers, rational-technical forms are largely absorbed by the mythical machine bureaucracy structure, where the new rules serve the purpose of signa1i;ng central d i c e administrators and the public that a change has occtrrred (Meyer, 1979). Of corarse, because they art. decoupled fronn the actual work, such relionns typilrally fail to bring about the desired chmges (see Cu:ban, 1979; E h o r e & McLaughlin, 1988; Skrtic, 3987). Worse yet, although they rarely produce the desired change, ratjond-technjcal reforms extend the existing (but misphced) formalization in schools; because formalization requires at least overt conformfty rational-techical reforms drive the orgmization further to(Skrtic, 1987,1991,b; Wise, ward the machinc bllrearncracy configuratio~~ 1979). T h i s process circumscribes professional discretion further still and ultimately forces even more students out of general education classrnolns and into the special edtteatim system. Even though s c h d s are nonadaptable stmcturcs, their status as pubfic organizations means that they must revonet to public demands for change. As we Iknokv, one way that schools ded with this problem is by using their outer machine bureaucracy structure to signal the public that a chmge has occurred. Another way that schods retieve pressure for change is by crcating ""rjtunl"or decoupled subw~itswithjn the organization by adding separate programs or specialists to deal with the change dtrmand vvfthout di?;rupting the rest of the organization (Meyer & Rowan, 1,977, 1,978).Given the loosely coupled intesclependme among teachers, schools signal change by simply adding separate subunits and then decoupling them from the other professionals alld programs. By sydolizing change, Chese decoupled subunits buffer the organization from cbange demmds, that is, they give the appearance of cbange without requiring any meaningful reorganization of activity (Meyer & Rowan, 1927; Zucker, l"381).

Pmfessional bureaucracics arc nonadaptable because they are premised on standardization, vvhich configures them as performance organizations, that is, organizations g e m d to perfecting lheir existing standard practices. However, the third configuration-the adhocmcy, noted previously-is premised m the principie of ovation rather thm standardization; it is a problem-sdving organizatim configured to invent new practices* Adhocracies emerge in dynarnic, uncertain environments where imobration and adaptatio~~ are necessary for organizational survival, (Pugh et al., 1963). As such, they are the inverse of the bureaucratic h r m (Burns & Stalker, 1966; Mioodward, 3965), organizations that confipre themselves

around work that is so ambiguous that initially the kno~iledgeand prartices required to do it are completely u~zho\vn@ugh et al., 1963; Toffler, 1970). As Mintzberg (1979) noted, "At the outset, no one can be sure exactly what needs to be done. 'f'hat knowiedge etevelops as the work unfolds. . . . The success of the u n d e r t a b g depends prharily on the ability of the [workers] to adapt to each other along their uncharted route" (p. 3). 'f'hedifference between aaocracies and professional bureaucracies is that faced with a problem, the adhocracy "engages in creat-ive effort to h d a novel solution; the professional bureaucracy pigeonholes it into a known ccmtingency tc:,which it can apply a standard [practice]. &e engages in clivergent thinking aimed at innovat-ion; the other inc o n v e ~ e n t thinking aimed at perfectionf' (Mhtzberg, 1979, p. 436). Perhaps the best early example of an adhocracy is the National Aemnautics and Space Pidministration ( M S A ) in Ihe 1960s when, during its Apollo phase, its mission was a manned lunar landing. NASA configured its& as an adhocracy because at the time there wem no standard practies for accomplishing such an undertaking. "R-tusat that point in its history, NASA had to rely on its workers to irwmt the necessary h o w l edge a d pactices on an ad hcrc basig on the way to the moon, as it we^. Mthou$h N A M employed professional workers, it could not use specialization and professionalization to divide and coordinate its work because there were nt-, proictssi~nalspecializations that had perfected the knowledge and practices for doing the type of work that was required. Thus in the 1Ws, NASNs division of labor and means of coordination were prt-mised on w l l a b o r and T B Z ~ ~ U Uudjzistnzetzt, I rczspecthely. A collaborative division of labor is achieved by deployjng professionals from various specializations on multidrsciplinary project teams, a situation in which team merrtbers work colIaboratiwely on the teamsf project of innovation and assume joint respvnsibility b r its completion. Cdlaboration is essential because innovation in organizations requires professionals tc:,"break through the boundaries of conventional speciatamalgamate their efization,'kereating a si.tuali.on in wh,ieh they "'must s multidisciplinary team, each formed. around a hrts [by joining] f o ~ e in specific poje" of ovation'"Miintzberg, 1979, pp. 434435). Under mutual adjustment, coordination is achieved through informal cornmunication among team members as they jnvent and reinvent m e 1 problem solutions on an ad hoc basis, a process that requires them to adapt their existing specialized howledge to that of their colleagues relative to the team"$ progrcss on the tasks at hand (ChmdLer & Sayles, 1971; Mintzberg, 1979, 1983). Together, collaboratim and mutual adjusment give rise to a iliscal~iuecarrpli~tgarrangelnent premised nn critical rdection and dialogiral discourse @ms & Stalker, 1966; and see further on). By contrast, during its currcsnt Space Shuttle phase, NASA has rczccmfig-

201;

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

ured itseff as a professional bureaucracy (see Romzek & &bnik, 1987), that is, as a perfcrrmance organization that perfccts a repertoire of standard Shuttle launch and recwery practices, most of which were invented during its Apollo phase. Although NASA has shifted from adhocracy to bureaucracy over the past thirty years, the emergence of a dynamic, postindustrial economy during this period has elevated the adhocracy confil;uration to a position of increasing promine~neein the fformerly)industrialized nations (Reich, 1983). Whereas the industrial economy of the twentieth century was premised on perkction (mass p " 1 c t i m through stmdardization) and thus reqvired the machine hureaucraey configmation, the emerging postiYICiustriisll economy is prexnised on invention, which, as we have seen, requires the adhocracy configmation. Thus adhocrarie called "organic structures" "ugh et al,, 19663)and, more recently, "learning organizations'"(Sengef 1990)-will become the domhant economic organizations of the twenty-first century (see Bennis & Slater, 1964; Minlzberg, 7,979; Taffler, 7,970). Adhocracies invent new products and services by deploying their workers on collaborative teams and empowwing them to clteccmstruct m d reconstruct their conventio~nalbowledge m d practices (Mhtzberg, 1979). Collaboration is essential because invention requires reflective p r o b h solvirtg t h u g h discourse, a process in which teams of workers construct new meanhgs in organizations, new ways to understand their work and thmsehes (Gray 1989; Reich, 1990). On their own, individual workers or specialists art- of little use in such organizations; requires a tarn of specialists who construct new bodies of bowledge and skill from existing ones, a goal that ""none of them working independently could achieve" (Gray, 1989, p. 11).As such, inwention through cold laboration requires a reconstruction of al, rneanings a ~ relationships within the organiza6m (Drucker, 19841; Jantsch, 1979). Moreover, because inventing new products and services is pointless if they are not personalized to the paticular needs of tkose cvho will use them, it also requires a different kind of relationship between the q a n i z a t i o n and its consumers (Drucker, 1989; Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1985; Reich, 1983, 1990). That is, given the inexorable relationship m o n g personalization, innovation, and coliaboration, the viability of postindustrial orgmizations depen& on a liemwratic relatimship among tbe organization's members (to invent new products and services) as well as between them and their consumers (to personalize what they invent) (Uertouzos et al., 1389; Drucker, 1989; Mintzberg, 1979; Reich, 1983). ?'he essence of this relaticmship is a new b r m of accountabilit.y Under the organizational contingencies of callahoraticm, mutual adjustment, and discursive coupling, accrzuntability is achieved rough a

presurned cornunity of inte~sts,a m s e among workers of a shared interest in a common goal. Under this form of accountarbility responsibility flows from the workerskommun concern for progress toward their mission rather than f m an ideological identification with a professional culttrrc (professional bureaucracy) or a formahed relatimship with a hierarchy of authority (machine bureaucracy) (see Burns & Stalkeu;1966; Chandler & Sayles, 1971; Romzek & Dubnik, 1987. Thus rather than the professictt~al-bu~eaucrn1:zlc mode of accounta,bi)ity that emerges in profcssional bureaucracies like schools (Marth, Overholt & Urbm, 1976; Wise, 1979), the organizational contir-tgenciesof the adhocracy configmation give rise to a more clemocratic, prufessiunuI-political lnode of accountability. Work is controlled by professionals who, althoutgh they act with mre discretion thm in a professional b m a u c m y , are subject to self-imposed sanctions that emerge wit-;hina political discot~rseamong themselves and their consumers (Bums & Stalker, 1966; Chandlers & Sayles, 1971; Romzek & Dubnik, 1987; Skrtic, 1991a).

Special Education's Assumptions from an Organizational P7ersgec.tive Tn this section 1consider the legitimacy and utility of special educatids conventional assumptior-ts from the organizational perspective devel(wjth the first two connbined) are oped previottsfy.Wese ass~~rnptions reproduced below in the form of questions about th nature, diagnosis, a d treament of lea

Are L e a m i q Disabilities Objccliive Patkologics?

Conventional school organizations are nonadaptable at the level of the professional because they use pmfessidization to coordinate their work. As we have seen, pmfessitmafizatictn standardizes teachers' skills, giving each a finite rczpertoircl?of standard prac.lices matckd to a particular set of prcsumc.d, student needs. :Moreover, it encourages convergent thinking and deductive reasonhg, which leads teachrrs to interpret their students9lneeds narrowly in terms of t,he practices in their ~pertoires.Although teachers have some discretion to adapt their practices to fit the actual needs of their students, there is a h i t on how much adaptation is possitnle. 'There are creative teahers, of cowse, individual professionals who think divergently and reason inductively. In principle, however, professionalizaticm does not produce problem sohers who seek creative solutions for each ul-rique need. By design, prokssional education and socializatjon produce professionals who think convergently and reason deductively. In schools, this means that students cannot have just any

208

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

needs; they must have needs that. more or less match the practices in their assigned teackr's repertoire of kills.Thus given the nature of professionalization, teachers tend to screen out diversity rather than accommodate it, either by fnrcing their shtdents' needs into one of thefr stmdarci practkes or, given t-he logic of specializatio~~, by forci,ng them out of their classroom and into a new professionatcfient relationshiy with a different educational specialist who is presrtmed to have the rcquired practices in her or his repertoire of skills. Given a finite repertoh of standard teaching practices and an M e r ently diverse and changing set of student needs, schools organized as prdssional bureaucracies can do not* but create sitmtions h which studentskeeds do not match the practices of their assiped teachers. As a result, students are identifiect as handicapped and, to one degree or anclassrooms simply because their needs canother, removed from reg~~lar not be accommodated by the standard. practices contained in a particular teacher's repertoiw of skills (see Ysseldyke, 1987). Mowover, the situation is compounded by the scientific management approach to educlational administration, which by htmducixlg unwarranted rationalization and formalization, reduces teahen;' discretion anci thus the degree to which they can retain students with atypical needs in their classrooms. From an organizational perspective, having a learning disability in school is neither a pathological condition nor an objective distinction. It is an. unintended consequence of organizkg schools as professional bureaucracies and manag4ng them as if they werc machine bureaucracies, a matter oE having needs that do not match the practices of teachers working in orgmizations that are not configured to accommodate diversity and so must scrt3en it out. In these organizations, the assessment and identification pmcesf; ~ q u i r e dby the Individuats with Disabilities Edulargely to pathologiae the inevitaible probcation Act (IDEA) ftatndio~~s lems encom tered by classroom teachers (see Christenson & Usseldyke, 1989; White & Calhoun, 1987; Ysseldyke, 1987; Ysseldyk-e & Algozzine, f 982; Vsscldyke et al., 19831, that- is, to redefine as human pathologies the organizational problems created by an inherently nonadaptable bureaucratic structure. Of course, there are some students in school for whom the handicapped designation is a pathologiral distinction, including s o m of the students labeled learning &sabled. However, because of a variety of "powerful organkationd influences" (Keogh, 1988, p. 2401, most stzldents identified as handicapped are not disabled. in, the pathological sense (see Brym, Bay, & Donhue, 1988; Kauffman, Cerber, & Semmel, f 988; Garher & iJipsky, 11,987;Wmg, Reynolds, & WaIbergI 1986,1987ta). The IDER assessment m d identificatiosl process does not result in objective distinctions between ""8sabledU and "nondisabled" "udents or

ammg the three high-incidence disability classificatims of learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, and mild mental retardation (see Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Gerher & Semmel, 1984; Kauffman, 1.988; Keogb, 1988; Wang, Reyndds, & Walberg, 1986, 1987a).3Mmeover, there artl virtually no instructiona[l,y relevant reasons for making the disabednondisabled distinction or for distixlguishing among the three hi&-incidence disability classifications. This is so because all students have unique )earning needs and thus, for exmple, "one cannot assume that any two learning disabled children would be any more similar than a learning disabled child and a ncnmatly achieving child, or a normdy achievhg child and an underarhieving child" (Brynn et al., 1.988, p. 25; also see Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Repolds, Wmg, cYr Walberg, 1987; Stainback & Stai~~back, 19M, 1989; Wmg et al., 1986,1987a).Finally, even if the assessment- and identification process cottld make such distinctions, "efiective instructional and.management procedures will be substantially the same for nonhandicapped and most midly handicapped students'? fi(auffmiin et d., 1988, p. 8; also see Cerber, 1987; Hdlat7an & Kattffman, Wang, 1989a, 1989b). 1977; Lipsky & Garber, 1989~; It is hportant to note &at these discouraging findings m tJle special education assessment and idcn~tificationproems do not mem that: there is no place for diagnostic and evafuat-ive tatEng in schools. What they do mean is that testing fnr the purpose of classifying students as disabled and nondisabled m d differentiating among Be three high-hcidence cla,ssifications is ineffective, inefficient, and cmterpmductive. The foms of diagnostir and evaluative tesf;ing &at rmain uselul are those that pmduce results that are meanimgfu,l to teacf-rers,that is, those that are direcay related to the hstnuctianal decisi akislg process, such as criterion-referenced tests, curriculum-based measures, and authenfic assessments.

I's %ecinl Edzrcatiotz a Ratiottnl System? Although as professional bureaucracies schools are no~~adaptable structures, as public organizations they must be responsive to public demands fnr change. As we have seen, one way that schools deal with this contradiction between organizational capacity and public expectations is to signal that a change has occurred by buildrng symbols and ceremonies of change fnto their decoupled machine bureaucracy stmcture. W knw, too, that their loosely coupled internal structure perm,its schools to signal change by s h p l y adding decoupled specialists and. programs, a move that gives the organization the appearance oE change without requirint; any meanhgful reorganization of activity 'The emergence of the segrclgated special educatinn classroom is the archetype of this fatter process at work in schools.

210

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

At the start of this century, when public schools were required to serve a broader range of students in the interest of the democratic ideal of universal public education, the 'bngraded" or specid dassroorm emerged to deal with largety poor, culturally diverse students who could not be accommodated by the convent-ional practices of classrouln teachers (18ogd.m &r Knoll, 1988; Lazerson, 1983; Sarason & Doris, 1979). From an organizational perspective, the s e g ~ g a t e dspecial classrow served as a legiti.mat-ing device, a politically expedient mechanism for signal% the public that schools had complied with the demand for unjversa1 public education while permit"ring them to maintain tbeir traditional organizational form and conventional practices- Once special, classrooms were created, they and their students and teachers were simply decoupled from the genclral education system.l Indeed, this decoupled relationst.lip between general m d specjal education was one of thc major criticisms leadjng to the passage of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 ( m w IDEA) and the intsoducrion of Che ""entinuum, of services," or maiwreaming, modd (see Christophos & Renj;, 1969; Deno, 1970; Dunn, 1968,1973; Johnson, 1962). Mowover, after nearly two decades of mait-tstreaming, the same decoupled relationship between general and special education continues to be a major criticism of the current system of specid education (see Lipsky & Cartner, 1989%ReynoLds & Wang, 3983; Stainback & Stai~~back, 19M; and further on). Consid.ering the function of special education from an organizational perspective, we can consid- it a ""rtional'" system mly in thc. narrw, technical setnsc of being lunctionally efficient or poiitically expedientfir school organizations, ft is not a rational system in the broader sense oi being the prctduct of ~ a s o n e dilltelligent , action that serves the best interests of students MIith specid educational needs, In this h a d e r , inteflectually and ethically defensible sense, special education is a nonratimd system because it is neither rationally concctived nor rationaily coordinated, It is not a rationally conceived system because, historically, it has served a politicd function as a legitimating device that schools use to cope with shifting value demands in society It is not a rationally coordinated sptem because, by design,it is decoupled fm the generd educaticm system and the other special-needs programs (e.g., compensatory education, bilingclal education, migrant education, gifted education), each of which is itseff: a decoupled submit added to schools in respctnse to an unattainable public dcmand for change (see Kauff~nanet al,,1988; Reynotds & Birch, 1977; Reynolds & Wmg, 1983; Reynolds et al., 1987; Wang, Reynolds, & Walberg, 1985,1986).Recall that the unintended consequence of usixrg organizatians to achieve social goals is that the goals

are shaped by the naturcz a d needs of the organizations. From an organizational perspetive, special education is an unintended consequence of the particular klnd of schooling that conventional scbool organizations provide.. It and the other speciaf-needs p'"grams are organizaticmai artifacts, pditical mechanisms that merged to prolecl the legitintaey of a nonadapthie bureaucratic structure faced with the changing value demands of a dynamiG and increasingly diverse derncrcratic society. Another way to address the question of whether special education is a rational system in the broad, intellectually and ethically defensible sense is to consider the effects of its e c e m m t and instmctirtnal practices on the students it serves. 'That is, even though special education is a nollrational system in the broad sense, does it nonetkeless confer some instructional benefit on students whose needs carnot be met in the general education system? Using this criterion, critics of the c u r m t system of special education reject the idea that it is a rational system fn the broad sense (e.g., Lftly f 986; Garher & L i p s b f 987; Reynolds, 1988; Reynolds et al., 1987; Stainback 6r Stain:back, 1984; Wang et al., 2387a). hinting to the weak effects of special education instructional practices and th:! social costs Of labelhg and seg~gation,they asgue that the czrrrcnt syst.em is no mart? rational than simpiy p e r d t i n g most students with special educational needs to =mail1 unidentifittd fn general education dassrooms (see Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Lips& & Gartner, 1989a, 1989b; Pugaeh & Lilly, 1984; Stainback & Stainback, 19M; Wang et d.,1987a; and further on),Althougtn they recognize that shtetents with special ecfucational needs can pose poblems for regular classroom teachers, their point is that, fundionhg separately; neither the general education system nor the special education systm is srtfficiently adaptable to serve them adequately (Garber & Lipsky 1987; Pugach & LiSliy; 1984; Wang et al., 1986), a position with which mast deienders of the current system agrce, implicitly ( B r y m et d.,1988; Mauifman, 1988) or expIicitiy (Kauffman et d., 1488; Keogh, 1988). Indeed, even the most avid defe~ldersof t k current system agree that special education placement a d instructional practices have not been shown to benefit studmts (see Hallahan, Keller, Mcfimey, Lloyd, & Bryan, 1988; Keogh, 1988). 'Their defemse of Che cursclmt system is based on the argument that these practices are beneficial to students in a political rather than an instructional smse. In tbis regard, they argue that given the w v resources have been allocated in schools historically the current sydem of special eciucat-ion targets otherwise unavailable special education instructional services to etesipated students, the questionable effc?ctivcness of these services notwithstanding (Council far Children wit.h Behavioral Disorders, 1989; Mauffman, 1988,2989; Mauffman et al., 1988).

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

1s Progress E'a Special Educafiotz a XstiEz'ctnal-EcknicaI Process?

In this section the question is *ether the special education system can be improved incremer~talyusing the rational-technical. approach to change previously described, that is, the approach intended. for machjne bmaucracies but misapplied to schoots historicaily. We can address this question by considering the impfcmemtation of the D E A from an organizational perspective.' Structurally, the problem with the IDEA is that it attempts to change professional bureaucraees into adhocracies by treating theln as if they were machine bureaucracies (Skrtic, 1987, 1991a). That is, the implicit goal of the IDEA is an adhocratic school, a problem-soiwjng organization in Mlhich educational problems arc solved by multidjsciplinary teams of professionals and parcnts who collaborate to invent personalized programs for each student designated handicapped. The problem here, of course, is that this goal contradicts Che logic of the inner pmfessimal bureaucracy structure of schools in every way given that the schools are performance organizations fn which fnclividual profession& work alone to perfect their conventional standard practices. As a result, &though the IDEA was intended to reduce the effects of student disabjlity by increasing personalized instmction and regdar classmm fntegratim, for several organizational reasons it has produced virtually the oppctsite rcsults. First, althougln the IDEA implicitly seeks an adhwratic school organization, it approaches change from the ratimai-technical perspective. That is, it assumes that schools are machine bureaucracies, organizations in which s~orkerbefilavior is controlled by procedural rules and thus is subject to modification through =vision and extension of those rules (see Elmare and Mcl,aughlh, 19821, 'Thus because the IDEAls means are cornpletrly consistent with the outer machine bureaucracy structure of schools, it exteneis their existing but misplaced rationalization and formdi,zation. Struetura,lfy,this extension dcftects the adhocratic ends of the IDEA from the actual work is1 schools by further reducing pmfessional thought and discretion, thus intensifying pmfessionalization and reducing peson"lj,ation in regular and special education dassrooms (see Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Kauffman et al., 1988; Keogh, 1988; Pugach & tilly, 1984; Skrtic, Guha, & b w l t o n , 1 9 s ; Weatheriey, 1979). This process reszllts in even morc students whose needs fa13 outsjde the stmdard pmctices of their cliassroom. teachers, most of whom must be identified as hmdicapped, primarily teamh~gdisabled (Cer"oer& Levine-Dmnerstein, 1989; US. Departmnt crl Education, 1988), and placed in special education (Skstic, 1987, 1988b, 1991a; Skrtic et al., 1985).

Second, because the IDEA requires at least overt clmformity, an array of symbols and ceremonies of compliance have emerged. C)me of the primary sysnbols of compliance with the law's "least restrictive environment" ph~cipleis the resource room, a new type of &coupled submit that serves students in the high-incidence disability ~Lassifications,primarily students classified as learning disabled.Vrorn an organimtional pwpective, the rt~sourceroom ( a d special needs puli-out grograms generally) is even mare problematic than the traclitional special classmom because it viojates both the division of Iabor and the mems of coordination in the professional bwaucracy configuration. Llnder the logic of mainstreamhg, the responsibility for the studel~t'sinstruc.lional program is divided m o n g one or more regular classmom teachers and a special education resource teacher. This a r m g e m a t contradicts the division oE Labor in schools became it rcqwires that the student's tistructional program be djvided among two or more prokssionals, a requirement justified implicitly cm the assumption that the professionals will collaborate to integrate the program. However, the cdaboration reyuircd to integrate the instructional program contradicts the logic of specialization and professionalization and thus the looely coupled f o m of titerdependence among teachers. In prirrciple, teachers collizborathg in the interest of a single student for whom they share responsibility does not: make sense in schuols. Indeed, because proEessimalization locates virtually all of the necessary coordina.t.ion hvithj.n the individual prokssional, there is little need for teachers to collaborate or even commund cate. If collaboration does occw in schools, it is rare, fleeting, and idiasyncratic, whether it is among regular classroom teachers ("F"ye8r Tye, 1984) or between regular classroom teachers and special education resource teachers (Lortie, 1975, 1978; Skrtic et al., 1985; Walker, 198'7). ("c the maximum extent Fbally; although regular classroom place~~ent possjblc) is r e q ~ i for ~ dstudents with disabilities under the IDEA, they are identified as handicapped precisely because their needs c comrnodated by the conventional practices of particular regular classroom teachers (see Skrtic et al., 1985; Walker, 1987).Tbus mainstreaming fnr these sbdents is largely symholirc; they spend time in ~ g u i a classr rooms, but as research on the implementation of mainstreaming has shown, they are not integrated in a meaningful way, instructionally or socially (Biklen, 1985; Skrtic et. al., 1985; Wright et, d., 19112).Givm its adhscratic goals, the IDEA was meant to be a mechanism for reducing the effects of student disability by increasing personalized instruction and ~ g u i aclassroom r integration. However, given the burczaucratif stmcturt. of schools and of the Law itself, the IDEA has resulked in m ticrease in the number of students classified as disabled, particularly Learning disabied

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

214

(Gerber & Levine-Donnerstefn, 1989; U.S. Department of Education, f 988); disintegsation of their instructional p r o g m s (Keogh, 1988, Skrtic, et al., 1985; Walker, 1987); and a decrease in personalization in regular and special education cLassrooms (Rryan et al., 1988; Cmlbt?rg & Kavde, 1980; Gartner 8r Lipsky 1988; W m g et al., 1986; Reynolds, Wang, 8s W l berg, 1987).

Equity, Exceltence, and Adhoeracy The postindustrial principll.~of personalization, ovation, and collaboratio11 are intplicit in the latest developntcnts in educatimaf reform, (see Skctic, 1991.a, 139Sa). For exmple, advocates of school restructuring in generai education reject t-he ccmventional bureaucratic school outright, as well as rational-techical reform efforts that merely try to make it more efficient through further standardization (e.g., Cuban, 1983/ 1989; Elmow, 1987; Goodlad, 198.4; Sizer, 1984; Wise, 1979). They argue that educational excellence requires a completely new structure for schools, one that e h l n a t e s homogeneous groupkg practices such as in-class abiliq groupiw, curricular trackhg, a d even some forms of special needs programming (Clfakes,1985,1996).At bottom, this new structure is pre~nised on inventing personalized instructional practices through cdrtaborative problem solving between and among p a n t s and professionals at local school sites (see Goodlad, 1984; McNeil, 1986; Sizer, 1,984). The same idea is at the heart of the hclusive-education reform movement in special education.' 111clusion advocates reject the assessment and identification rcqwirements of the D E A and the placement and instructional practices associated with mainstreaming (Liysky & Gartner, 1989a; Pugach & Lilly, 19M; Reynolds & Wang, 1983; Stainback & Stainbark, f 984). like advocates of school restructuring, they argue that educational equity requises a restructured system of public education, one that htegrates t-he separate gttlneral and special education systems into a unified sptem that is "flexible, supple and rcsponsive'"(Cipsky & Garher, 1,987, p. 721, a "tota1Xy adaptlive system" (Rcynolds ct; Wang, 1983, p. 199) ddesigned to perscmalize instruction through '"group problem solving . . . shared responsibility;and . . . negotiationf"(Pugach 8s Lilly; 19884, p. 52). Although historically the relationship between general and special education has been strained by the inability to ~concitethe goals of educational. excellence and educatiolnal equity, today there is a convergence of interests beheen the pmponmts of school restmcturing and the proponents oE inclusiwe education. Both gmups oE reformers are calling for a system of education that provj,des '%U" students with pecsonaljzed instruction in heterogeneous classroonns, In both cases, such a system is to be achfeved t-hrough stmcbral reforms that i n c ~ a s professional e discre-

tion and promote collaborative problem solving among professionrxls and consurners at local schools. Althou$h t h e are differences hlrith-in and between the inclusive-education and school-restructuring reform. movements ~ l a t i v eto the defb~itionof "df'students, they are differences in degree, not in kind (see Skrtic, 1991a). From an organizational perspective, both groups Fnrplirialy are calling for the elimination of specializatim, professionalization, and hose coupling in schools and thus their nonadaptable hner professional bureaucracy canfiguration. Moreover, both groups hplici_tly are calling for the introduction of collahosation, mukal adjustme~~t, and discursive coupling, thr stmcturai cmtingencies of the adaptable, personaljzing adhocratic configusatian (see Skrtic, 1991a, 1995c)."n organizational terms, then, achieving excellence and equity fn public education =quires the same thing-recmfigtlring schools as adlaocracies, As we know, adhocracies configure themselves as pmblem-solving organizations because they do ambiguous work, that is, wlrrk for whiCh the required practices are u n b a w n at the outset m d thus must be invezzted thruugh divergent thinking and inductive masoning by teams of professitrnds and consumers engaged fn a ~flectivediscourse. Uncertainty is esse~ztialif m orgmization is to became and remain adhocratic because without it, adhocracies reconfigure thernsetves as bureaucracies, as the case of NASA iilustrates. Thus reconfiguring schools as adhocracies requires m e~zdurhgsource of hstructio~zal,uncertahty In organizational terms, public education cannot be excellent or equitable unless schools are adhocratic. 111 structural terns, schools can neither become nor remain adhocratic without the instructionat uncertainty of studelzt diversity. As we have seen, the conventional bureaucratic configuration of schools means that they are performance organizations, nonadaptable structures that must scrcen out diversity by forcing some students uut of the system. But s t u d a t diversity is not an inherent probkm for school organizations; it is a problelx olzly if they are canfigured as bureaucracies or performance osganizations. Regardless of its causes m d its extent, sttldenf diversity is zot a lilrbIlify in a pmblem-sdving orp~rizati~n; in an adhocratic school it is an asset, an azduping source of uncertainty and thus the driving force behistd innovation, grow& of knowledge, and progress (see Skrtic, 1991a, 1991b). Athough the moral wurncnt for educatimd equity has always been right, today special education professicmals and Xeaming djsabilitics advwates c m strengthen their position by arguing that from an organizational perspective, educational equity is a precondition for educational excellence. The first step in making this argument is for them to stop thinking of leanling dishilities as human pathologies and to start think-

21 6

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

ing cJf them and special education its& as organizatimal pathologies, mtifacts of convemtimal schooling, unintended consequetnces of orgmizing schools as professional bureaucracies and managing th.em as if they were machine bureaucracies. The secmd step is to conviztee educators and the puhlic that shifting from bmaucratic to adhocra.t.icschooling will serve the best political and economic interests of America, particularly as it faces the chaknges of the emerging postindustriat era. Adhorracy and Democracy in Postindustnrial Ammica At the start of this century; John Dewey (1976,1988b) argued that the arrhal: of an industrial age had created both a pmblem and m opportuniy fnr America. 'l'he problem was &at industrialization put m m of life, partictrlarly work and educathn, under the bureaucratic administrative hrm. As we have seen, the problem with bureaucracy is that it virtually elimkates the need for people to solve problms and to q a g e in discourse. And because bureaucracy thus diminishes the human capacity lfor reflection and collaboration-the essential skills lfor democratic citizenship-Dewey believed that industridization threatened the public's abil,ity to govern itself democraticalfy. 'The opportunily posed by indtas-. trialization was that as a mode of economic production, it created an expanding network of regional, national, and ir-ttentational social interdependex7cies. h turn, Dewey (1988a, 1"38b) argued, these interdependencies created the need lfor a new cultural sensibility in America, a shift from the nagged or posess"ie individudism that h d served it well in the eighteen* and njneteent-h celnturies to a sctcicll form of hdjvidualis~nthat was mare suited to democratic life under the new interdependent conditions. P o i n t a to the mounting social and politic& costs of this cultural contradiction, Dewey (1988a, 1988b)arigued, that the new conditions of interdepmdence made posible and begged for a new appmach to public education, one pretnised on returning problems to the lives of students, problems that r e q ~ i them ~ d to engage in reflective discourse and collaborative problem sofving, thus developing in them the essential skills for dmocratic dtizenship. Dewey (19%) bclieved that the goal of public education should be to restore the public" capaciv for democratic citizenship by turning schools into communfties of inquiry, problem-rich cmtexts in which thinking teachers put their students' minds to work on concrete problcm+intellectuaX and moral-rather than sinnply filling their heads with abstract "facts." For Dewey, education was a social constructi\rist process leading to ""reconstruction . . . of experience which adds to the meacrhg of experience, and , . . increases the ability to direct the course of subsequent experience" (Uewey, 3976, p. 93). He favored a

pedagogy premised on collaborati\le problem solvhg because he saw it as the best means for developing students' capacities for criticai reflection and didogical discourse, the essential skills for reconstructing experience democratically* The arrival of a postindustrial age makes Dewey's earlier arguments about the social and political costs of possessive individualim even m m ~ l e v a ntoday t than they were at the start of the century. A postindustrial economy makes the world even mare interdependent (Rosenthau, 196130)' and thus social individualism even more of a necessit-y for meanixlgful dcmocratic life. As suck, postindustrializat.ion creates a new set of opporbnities and problems for America. C)ne advantage is that a postindustrial. economy requires schools to produce a different kind of worker. Dewey argued for educating reflective demwratic citizens during a period when industrialists were dernandjng that schools produce compljant buteaucratic workers (see CaXlahan, 1962; Haber, 1964). ?itday, however, posthdustrialists, in effect, are callhg for democratic workers, ~flectivepeople who can identify m d solve problems collaboratively through dialagical discourse (see Destouzos, Lester, & Solow, 1989; Bucker, 1989; Keams & Doyle, 1988; Naisbitt & AburiIme, 1985; 1Ceich, 1983,1990). 'This development is significmt because it holds out the possibility of a collvergence of interest on the long-standing and highly contested question of the role oi public educatim in a capitdlist democracy. h related advantage is that postindustrialism changes the meaning of educational excellence. Far more than basic nunneracy and literacy, educational excellence is the capacity for working cdlaboratively with others and for taking responsibility for learning (Dertouzoset at., 1989; Drucker, 1989; Kearns & D@@, 1988; Naishitt & Abur$ene, 1985; Reich, 1983, 1990; Scretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 1991).The rcldefi,nition of educational excellence is particdmly significant for the special education advocacy community because it chmges the meanixlg of educational equity, in effect making it a precmdition far economfc excelle~lce(see Skrtic, 1991b). 'This is SO because collaboration means learning with and from persons with varying interests, abilities, and cdtural perspectives; and taking responsibility for learning means being respmsibe for one's own Learning alzd that of others (Dertauzos et ,?L., 1989; Drucker, 1989; Kearns & Doyie, 1988). Ability grouping, tracking, and categorical pull-out programs hiwe no place in a p0"hdustrial systm of education because, as former secretary of labor Robert Reich, noted, they "reduce young people" ccapacitiies to learn from. m d colla:hmate with one another'" flWcb, p. 208). Such practices work against promoting social responsibiljty in students and developing in &ern the capacity for negotiation within a cornunit). of interests, outcomes that XZeich believes are unlikely udess ' k i t y and cooperation are the norm" h inschools (Reich,

218

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

1990, p. 208; also see Uertouzos et al., 19B; Secretarfs Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 1991). Not only is hclusion possible h such a system of education, it is the central organizhg principle. Like industrialization, however, pcrstitldustrialization also creates a problem is the new set of problems br America, The nnost u~~settling specter of a two-class society composed of elite, adhocratic "thought workersf"on the one hand and LW-level service workers and the permanently underemployed m d unemployed on the other"5peda.l educatio~z is implicated here because, as we have seen, in its cmentimaI form it is a sophisticated and largely urncognized form of tracking that is uniquely placed withi,n public educatio~zto serve the necessary sorting Ifunction (see Skriic, 1991a, 1995a; Tomlh~son,1995). Like all social policy, educational policy is concerned with more than technical issues; it is concerned primarily with moral transac.lions and social relations (Blanco, 1994; Titmuss, 1968).Asld so hreconstmcting educational institutions and practices for a postindustrial age, special educators and disability advocates must be exp,idt about what they believe is morally and. politically right, Since at least the 1 9 7 0 ~they ~ have been right about trying to build a m m inclusive, consumer-oriented system of special education. Given the shortcomings of the resulting system, a better understandjng of school organkation m d change, md. current political and economic cmditions, today they can and must set their sights on buildkg a morc3 inclusive, conszlmer-oriented system of public education. Like all those who approach social policy from a democratic perspective, they must "prcibe and pushf"the value assulnptions that shape social policy tokvard those that unite us (Rein, 1970,197Ci). From thjs perspective, social policy Labwe all shodd be concerned with building m inclusive system, one that '"eludes those aspects of social life that are . . . justified by q p e a i to . . . ident.iCy or community . . . to b d d , the identiy of a person around s m e community with which he is associatedf"(tSoulding, 1967, p. 7). Znclusion and ilientity are central to social policy because their opposites, exclusion and alienation, threaten community itself (Moroney 1981). Moreover, as Dewey (1980,1988a)and others (e.g., Guttman, 1987) have noted, because humans must learn to be democratic, educational policy h particular must promote hclusive systems because these are the types of hstitutional arrangements in which democratic identities, values, and communities are cultivated. Notes l . The structural analysis p;rtlsrzntc?ctin this section is an admittedly narrow interpretation because it does not consider the cufture of schools. For an analysis that combines structural and cultural perspectives on school organization and

change, see Skrtic (1987, 498813, 4991a, 1991b, 4995b, 4995e). Except where noted otherwise, all of my comments on configuratian theory (division of labor, cmrdination of work, interdepmdence among workers, and the implications of configuratbn for management, adaptabiliv, and accountability) and institutional thec>ry(decoupled structures and subunits and the implications of organizational symbols and ceremonies fc~rschool governance and educational reform) are based on the authors cited in this sentence, respectively2, My use of citations in this section is mmewhat unconventional, Thmughc>ut the section X make a number of theoretical claims based on the structural analysis of schc~olorganization and change presented previously; The authors cited in association with these claims have not made such claims; X am making the theoretical claims and simply using the citations as references to empirical and interpretive research that supports them. 3. There is no argument over the fact that most disabilities in the severe to profound range of severity are asscjciated with observable patterns of biological symptoms (or syndromes) and are thus comprehensible under the pathologLeaX model. The question of tzrhether student disabilities are patholagical refers primarily to the high-incidence disability dassificationti, which in most cases d o not shc~wbiological signs of pathology, as noted previously. 4. Another example of decoupling is the overrepresatation of minority students in special classrooms, a process in which school organizations use an existing decoupling device-the special education system-to maintak their legitimacy in the face of failing to meet the needs of disproportionate numbers of minority students in regular classrooms. For more on this pc~int,see Skrtic (1988a, 199la, 1995a, 1995d) and Sleeter (1995). 5, Although in this section I use the IDEA (P.L. 404-4%) to refer to the law that governs special education practice, much of the implementation research cited in this sectic~n(see note 2) was done prior to the time the law" name was changed fram the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142). Nevertheless, the basic principles and requirements of the IDEA are ~~irtually identical to those of P.L. 94-142. 6. The symbol of compliance for grc3grams that serve students labelect severely and prafoundfy handicapped is the traditional decouplecf submit, the segregated special classroom. Although 1 will not consider these prcjgrams here, I have argued elsewhere (Skrtic, 1991a) that they are important in an organizational sense because given the unique needs of the students they serve and the interdisciplinary approach employed, they are prc~totypicalof the adhocratic arganizmtional form. 7..What I am calling the "incXusive education refc~rmmovement" kbeg as the ""regubr education initiative" in the early 1980s and evolved into a highly con.tentious debate over the wisdom and feasibility of inclusive educat.ic>nas a replacement for mainstreaming. Far reviews, see Davis (1(389),Gaetz and Sailor (l9C)Q),Fuchs and Fuchs (lta91,1994), and Skrtic (1987; 1913&, 1991b). 8, A comprehensive analysis of the school-restructuring and incfusive-education reform proposals would show that even though the reforms both groups want require the adhc~cracystructure, their reform proposals actually retain the professionat bureaucracy structure. For more on this shortcoming in both reform

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

220

movements and its negative implications for special education, see Skrtic (1988, 1991a, 1991b, 1995a, 1995~).

References AlIix~n,G. T. (1971). Essence cfdecision: Explninhg fke Czlbnn ntissz'le crisis. Boston: Littlet Brown, Bates, R. J. (1980). Educational administration, the sociolog of science, and the Qzmrterly, 2 6(2), 1-20. management of knowledge, Elazlrcational Adtninisf~~hlfio~z Bennis, W. G., & Slater, 1,. L. (1964). The tempom~ysociety. New York: Harper & Row. Bikfm, D. (1985).A clziez~irzy:the complete school: Strategies for efect izre nzainstreatrzirzg. New York: Columbia University Bledstein, B. J. (19%). The c~atftireof prafessii~rzatis~r~: The middle chss and developmenf ofhz'glzeredumtion in America. New York: W W. Norton. Bogdan, R,, &: h o l l , J. (19tr38). The sociology of disability. In E. L. Meyen & T. M, Skrtic (Eds.), Exceytioual cIzz'ldren and yozit~f:An irzfroducfion(pp. 449-477). Den.uer: Love, Bogdan, R,, & Kugelmass, J, (1984). Case studies of mainstreaming: A symbolic interactionist approach to special schooling. Tn L. Barton & S. Tc3mlinson (Eds.), Special education and social i~zterests(pp. 17S191). New York: Nichots. Boulding, K. (196";7.The boundaries of social policy. Social Wark, 12,3-11. Bryan, T., Bay, M,, & Donahue, M. (1988). Implications of the learning disabilities definition for the regular education inltiative. JozlmnE of Learniug Disabilities, 23 (l),23-28. Burm, T., CZr Stalker, G, M, (1966). The rnn~agen.~ent ofz'nnoz7atiou (2nd Ed.). London: Tavistock. d analysis, Burrell, G., CZr Murgan, G. (1979). SocioEogz'mE paradigms a ~ organizatlitnnl London, England: Heinemann. t Chicago: University of CalXahan, R. (1962). Educatio~zand the c ~ l ofefiiciency, Chicago Press. Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-anatysjs. Jozimal cf Special Education, 14,295309. Chandler, M. D,, &E Sayles, L. 13. (1971).Mr-rnagi~zglarge systetrzs, New York: Harper and Row, Cherryhoims, C. H. (1988). Pozoer alzd c1.z'ticz'sm:Poststructzlralisf int~estigafionsin edumtion. New Yc~k:Teachers College Press. Christensm, S., &E Ussetdyke, J. (1989). Assessing student performance: An irnportant change is needed. Juurnal of Scitool Psyciznl~~gy, 27; 409425. Clark, D, L. (1985). Emerging paradigms in organizational thwry and research, In V. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Org~nizationaltlz~oryand ipzqtciry: The pnmdi;gm revolzation ('p. 43-78). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, Cot lins, 13, (1979). The crdent i d society. New York: Academic Press.

Cuban, L. (1979). Determinants of curriculum change and stability 487&11i370. In j, khaffarzick $e G. Sykes (Eds.), VizEue c013flicfsnnd carricz~lumI'ssues. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, Cuban, L. (1983). Effective schmls: A friendly but cautionary note. Phi Delta K+pm, 6411Q), 695696. Cuban, L. (1989). The "at-risk" label and the prc~blem. of urban schoc~lreform, Phi Deltg Knppn, 70(1Q), 788-784,799-801. Dalton, M. (1959). Merz totzo manage. New Y~rk:Wiley. Baviq W. E, (1989). The regular initiatke dcltbate: Its promises and problems. Exceplio~zalChildre~t,55(5), 440-446, Bertouzos, M, L., Lester, R. K,, & %low, R, M, (1989). Made irz Anzerica: RegaE'it~i~~g the productive edge. Cambridge, M A : MTT Press. Bewey, j. (1938). Educatian, democracy and socialized economy. Tke Social Erontier, 5(40), 71-73 Dewey, j. (1976). The school and society. In j, A. Boydston (Ed.), j o h ~Dcwq: The middle works, 1899-1924 (VC$.1, pp. 1-309). Car"oondale, TL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1899) Bewey, J. (1980). Democracy and educatim. In J, A. Boydston (Ed.), fol?n Dezuq: Tke middle tourks, 11599-4924 (Vol. 9, pp. 1-370). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1916) Dewey, F;. (1988a). Individualism, oXd and new. In J. A. Buydstc~n(Ed.), lolln Dewey: The later works, 3925-1953 (Vol. 5, pp. 41-223). Carbandale, IXL: Suthern Ill inois University Press. (Original work published 1929-1 930) Dewey, I, (1988b). The public and its prablerns. In Jo Ann Bnydston (Ed.), j o h ~ Llewcy: The later. zoauks, 1925-1953 (Vc>lume2: 1925-1927), (pp. 235-372). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1927') Brucker, I? F. (1989). The new realitis, New York: Harper and 130~. Dunn, L. M, (19(;8).Special education for the mildly retarded-Is much of it justifiable? Excclptimnl Cl?ildre13,35(1), 5-22, Elmore, R. E (1987). Early ex~~eriences izz restrricfurizzgselroofs: Voicesfiom E.?zefi;"n". VVashingtcm, DC: National Gut~ernorsAssociation. Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W (19132). Strategic choice in federal education policy: The compliance-assislance trade-off. In A. Lieberman and M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Poliq makitlg in edztcniiockn: E i g l t i y - f ~ tyearbtlok of klze NIItionlal Sucicty fir the Stzkdy of Educaliorz ( p p , 159-194). Chicago: University of Chicago 13ress, Elmow, R, F., & McLaughlin, M, W, (1988). Steady m r k : Policy, pmctim, and the reform ojAtrzerica7.z educafion. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Fc>ster,W. (1986). Pnmdignzs and promises: r\Jew apprcjtacJzes to educat ional admizzist ration. Buffalo, W Promtheus Books. Foucault, M. (19"7). Madness and cbilizntion: A Itisfoy c$ ir-zsnnityizz rlze age cf vensun, R, Hcltvard (trans.), New York: VintageIRandom P-ic~use.(Original work published 1961) Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus and P? Rabinow (Eds.), Micfiel E ~ E . I C Q Beyo~~d U ~ ~ :strzicf~trnlis~~~ alzd f~erme~eufics, ( p p . 208-2126). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Freidsctn, E. (1988). Professiorzal powrs: R st~tdyof ftic iltlsfZIt~ti;Ozzatizafio~z offonnal ktzowledge, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fuchs, D., & Fuchti, L. (1991). Framing the RE1 debate: AboXitionlsts versus conseuvationists. In J. W. Lloyd, N. N. Sin*, & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The Regular Education l~rifiafia?e: Aftemnfive perspeclives on concepts, issues, and models, (pp. 241-255). Sycamore, 1L: Sycamore. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools mc>vernentand the radicalization af special ebucatic~nreform, Exceptio:orznlClzildren, 60(4), 294-309. Gartner, A., &: tipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: "bward a quality system fs~rall students. Harvnrd Eiduwfiorzat Review, 57($), 367-390. Gerber, M, M,, & %wine-Donnerstein, D, (1989). Educating all childrcm: Ten years later. Exqlit?:ltnalchildren, 56(1), 17-27, Gilb, C. L, (1966). Hidden I?iera.r.ehl'es:T1ze professions alzd gae-rem?rtent. New tlork: Harper (4r Row. Coetz, L., & Sailor, W. (19%). Much ado abc~utbabies, murky bathwater, and trickle-dcywn politics: A reply to Kauffman. loz-smalcf Special Edzrmfion, 24(3)1 3s339. Goodlad, J. 1. (1984). A pl~cecalled scltool: Prospects for the fzi trlre, New tlork: McCraw-Hill, Gray, B, (1989). Collaboratiug: Firzdilfg camn2an gmrind fir ~rzulti~tnrfy problems, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gixttman, A. (1987). Democratic educa tian. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. malzagemert t itz the Progressiv~Erg, Habel; 5, (1964). Eficietzcy and zkptfi: Scie~~fpc 1830-1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Haskell, T. L. (19841, Tke aziftzarily of experts: Stzrdies in hislurp a d dtheoiy, Bloomingon: Indiana University Press. t cdrrcalia~t: Heller, K., Holtzman, W., & Messiek, 5. (1982). Placiug ctzildrezz itz speci~ A strategyfor eqrar'ty, VVashingtcm, BC: National Academy of Sciences Press, House, E. R. (1979). Technolc>gyversus craft: A ten year perspective on innovation. fotrrlzal c?fCurl.l'culumStudies, 31(1), 1-15. IXIich, 1. (19%). Medic~l'rze-nzesis. New York: Random House. Jantsch, E, (1979). The sev-orgatlr'zirzgur?z"ucrse.New York: Pergamon Press Johnson, G. 0.(1962, October). Special educatiiyn for the mentally handicappedA paradox, Exceptiorznl Clzildwn, 6 2 4 3 . Kauffman, J. M , Gerbeu; M. M., %mmel, M. I. (1988). Arguable assumptions un.derlying the regular education initiative, lourrlal of Learr-zingDisabilifies, 21(1), 6-11, Kearns, D. T., & DoyXe, D. P. (19138). Witznz'rzg flze bmifz m e : A bold pkrn to make our scizaols mmpetz'tive.San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies. Keogh, B. K. (1988). Imprc>vingser~icesfor prcjblern learners: Rethinking and restructuring. )t?urr-zalof Leorr-zitzg Disabililies, 21(l), 19-22. Kuhn, T. S. (19[78). The strueCltre ofscknf#e ree~t~lzrfions. (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lazerson, M. (1983). The origins of special education. In J. G. Chambers CZr W. 7'. Hartman (Eds.), Spcci~tedi-lcatiorzpolicies: T!teir ltisturyr implementnliun, and jnnl.zce, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

tipsky, D. K., & Cartner, A, (Eds.) (1989a). Bqorzd s q m t e ed1rmtio:orz:QliaIity educiztit~tzfor all. Baltimore: Paul H . Brclokes. tipsky, D. K., &r Cartmer, A, (1489b). Building the future. In D. K. Lipsky & A. Cadner (Eds.), Bqottd separate edzrmfioiulz: Qzanlity edatcntio:orzforail (pp. 255-290). Baltimore: Paul H, Brclokes. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Scfiaolternefier:A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago 13ress, McNeil, L. M, (1986). Contradictimzs ofcontrol: Scizaol structure alzd sclzool ktzowledge. New York: Methuen/Routledge & Kegan 13aul. Mercer, J. (1973). La beling the tnentally retarded: Cli~z'caland social systenz perspeetizles on ment-nl' retlardatimz, Berkeley: University of California 13ress, Meyer, J. W, & Rc>wan,B. (1977). Tnstitutionatized organizations: Format structure as myth and ceremony American journal ofSoeit?ltZogy, 83,3M-3@. Meyer, J. W, & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M. W Meyer (Ed.), E~lz~ironmenlz; and organizafl'ons ( p p . 7&109). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Meyer, J. W., & %o>tt,W. R. (1983). Qrg~nizationafena>irunurtenCs:Ritual and mtiotfalify. Beverty Hills, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. W. (49"i"). Organizational structure as signaiiing. PacFc Sociological Revicrrw, 22(4), 484-500. Miller, D., & Mintzberg, P-i. (1983). The case for cmfiguratiort. In C. Morgan (Ed.), Bqorzd mct;Izod:Strategies for sockl reswrcI:z (pp. 57-73). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Mintzberg, P-i. (19m). The strzlcturi~fgoforga~limtiorz~. Engkewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hail. Mintzberg, H. (1983), Stnrct-rlre i ~ zfiz~es:Besignirzg efcctive arganizatiolzs, Englewood Cliffs, MS:I3rentice-Hall. Itiulside our s tmnge world of orgnnizaMintzberg, H. (1989). Mitztzberg on ~rtanagenzent-: tions. New York: Free Press. Moroney, R, M, (l981). Policy analysis within a value theoretical framework, In R, tlaskjrts CZr J. J. Gaflagher (Eds.), Modelsfor n~alysisof social policy: An intmduction (pp.7&101). Norwood, NJ: AbXex, Na isbitt, J., & Aburdene, P. (1985). Re-inzjelzting the eorporaflion.New York: Warner Books. Oakes, J. (1985). Keqizzg track: Hozu selrools strricfure ir-zcqlr~lity.New Haven, C-P: Yale University Press. Pal.tic>ns,II: (1960). Sfrricfurcand process ir-z modern societies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Perrow, C. (19"3") . Organizatic~nralanralysis: A sociologiml rcviezu., Belmont, C A : IrJadswodh. Perrow; Cl. (19788).Demystifying organizatims. In R, C, Sarri and Y. P-iasenfeld of lzuma~zservices (pp. 105-420). New York: Columbia (Eds.), The ma~zagemeiulzf. University Press. tfteory,Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Pfeffer, j, (1982). 0rgat1izatio:orzsalzd orga~~izatio:orz Pugach, M,, &: Lilly, M, S. (1984). Reconceptualizing support services far class-. room teachers: Implications for teacher educatian. fozirnal of Daclzer Educafz'on, 35(5),$&-55,

224

Tlzomns M. Skrfic

Pugh, D. S., Hicksicm, D. J., Hinnings, C, R,, MacDrtnald, K. M,, Turner, C., & Luptun, T. (1963). A concqtual scheme far orgarclizational analysis, Admr'nistmfiz~e Science Quarterly, 8(4), 289-31 5. Reich, R. B. (1983). The next Anwrica~fio1"~titlr. New b r k : P e n p i n Books, Reich, R. B. (1990). Education and the next economy In In. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Edzkcalit?~~ reform: Making setzse of it all (pp. 194-242). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ReynoXds, M. C., & Wang, M. C. (1983). Restructuring ""secial" xscl.loo1prc3grarns: A position paper. Poticy Sfzrdies Review, 2(1), 189-212. Reynolds, M. C,, Wang, M. C., &r Walberg, H, J, (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and general education. Excepticl~tralChildretz, 53,394-348. Rist, R,, & Harrell, J. (25;)82).Labeting and the learning disabled child: The social ecology of educationat, practice. Anferiean Joicarnnf of Ortlropsyctfiatry, 52(1), 2 4&160* Rornzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountabiliv in the public sector: 47(3), Lesscjns from the Challenger tragedy. Pziblic Administral.ion Rcvie~u~ 227-238. Kosenthau, j, N. (1980). The stiidy ofgtobnl interdepctzderzce. London: P i n t e ~ Sarason, S. B,, & Doris, J. (1979). Educational ha~dienp,?public policy, alrd socM1 history, New York: Free Press. Schein, E, H, (1972). Profissional education. New b r k : McGraw-Hill. Sch6n, D. A. (1983). Tlze reFecfivepmctilion~r:Hozu prcfessionrals fllz'r-zkin nctbn. New "u'ork:Basic Books. Scott, R. W (1981). 0r~l;ln.izntions:Rntlional, nalurnl, alzd (?pensystents. Englewood Cliffs, Nj: Prentice-Halt. Secreta ry" Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). Wlfafwork requirm of schools: A SCANS report fir Atnericn 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor: Segaf, M, (1974). Organization and environment: A typology of adaptability and structure. Ptsblic Adrrzinistrntion Review, 221-220. Senge, P. M. (1990). Tlzefiylrll discipline: rite nrf and pr~cticeof tlze leamir-zg organizatio~z,New York: Doubleday Sirnon, FT. A. (1977). The new science cf managenzent decisio1a;rz. Engf ewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall. S-izer, T. R. (1984). I-Ioracerscompraur~ise:The dilemma cf the Antel-imn lzigl.11 scllool. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Skrtic, If, ;V. (1986). The crisis in special education knowledge: A perspective on perspective. Fc~czisorz Exceptiozzat Glzild~n,lt7('7),4-16. Skrtic, "F, M, (1987).An organizational analysis of special education reform. Counfe~Ol't2f8(2), I 5-1 9. Skrtic, T'. M, (1988a). The crisis in special education knowledge, In E, L. Meyen and T. M. Skrtic (Eds.), Exceptional cltildvesz and youtlt: An Z'ntrl?duefion(pp. 415447). Denver: Love. Skrtic, T. M. (1988b). The organizational context of special education. In E. L. Meyen and X M, Slsrtic (Eds.), Excepfioirlal childrer~and yozilh: An itztroductiozz. Benver: Love. Skrtic, T. M, (1991a). Befzitld special edzrmfiozz:A critimt anatysk ofprofessiorzal czilttire n ~ sclzool d organizatimr, Benver: Love.

Skrtic, T, M. (1994b). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to exeellence. Hatward Edzrcational R~zliew,61(?), 14&206. Skrtic, T. M. (Ed.) (3995a). Disability and denfocraq: Reconstructizzg (special) educnt ion for post nzodernit . New York: Teachers CoXIege Press. Skrtic, rX: M. (1995b). The organizational context of special education and school reform. In E. L, Meyen & 7:M. Skrtic (Eds,), Special education and student disability: Traditio~nl,emeqpi~~g, a ~ alterrzatiw d persyectiz~es,(pp. 729-791). Bentrer: Love. Skrtic, T. M, (191)5c). Power/knowledge and pragmatism: A postmodern view of the professions. In T, M, Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democmcy: Recorzsfntcting (specigl) education fi7r postmoderr-zily (pp. 25-62). New York: Teachers College Press. Skrtic, T. M. (1995d). The special education knc>wledgetradition: Crisis and opportt~nlq.In E-.L. Meyen & T. M. Skrtic (Eds.), Special edrjcnfl'onand student disability: Traditional, enzergiq, and altemntz've persyecti.zres (pp. 5 7 9 a 2 ) . Benver: Love. Skrtic, "I: M. (1995e). Special education and student disability as organizational pathologies: Toward a metatheor y of school organization and change. In T, Skrtic (Ed.), Disability alzd democracy: Rmnsfrticting Cspechl) education for postmodenzitp (pp. 490-232). New York: Teachers College Press. Skrtic, T. M., Guba, E. G., & Kx?rc>wlton,FT. E. (2"3&5). Inl.erorgnnizationn1special edztcnfl'onprogmnznti~~g in rural areas: Teclznical report on flze ntziltisite nai~crali~ticfield study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Sleeter, C. E. (1995). Radical structuraXist perspectives on the creation and use of learning disabilities. In T. Slcrtic (Ed.), Disability and detrzocracy: Keco~structi~~g (special) education for postmodernity (pp. 2 53-1 65). New York: Teachers College Press. Stainback, S., & Stainback, W, (19841, A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Elxc~pllonalChilclre~t,51,102-111, Thompso~n,J. D. (253ti7). Qrganizafisns izz action. New Ycfrk: McGraw--HiXI. Fzztzrre shock. New York: Bantarn Books. Tc>ffler;A. (19"7Q). Tc>mlinson,S. (1982). A sociology cfspecial edztmfion. Boston: Routledge and Kegan 13aut. Tornlinson, S, (1995). The radical structuralist view of special education and disability: Unpopular perspectives on their origins and develc>pment,In T. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Recorzsfrzlcti~tgCsp~ial) edrrctkliotzfor postmudcrr-zify (pp. 122-134). New Yark: Teachers College Press. Tye, K. A,, & Tye, B. B. (19812). Teacher iscjlation and school reft>rm,Phi Delfa Kappat^, 65(5), 319-322. U.S. Department of Educatic~n(1988). Annual %port Co Congrss on the impletnentntion C$ CIze Edrscafionfor All Flklndicnpped Childran Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Walkex; L. J. (1Cd87). 13roceduralrights in the wrong system: Special educatian is not enouglx, In A. Gartner & T. Joe (Eds.), Ifi-nages oftlze disabled/disabIi~zginzages. New York: Praeger, Wang, M. C., Reynafds, M. C,, & Walberg, H. 5, (1986). Rethinking special education. Edltmliorzal Lcaderslte, 44(1), 26-31.

224

Tlzomns M. Skrt ic

Weatherley, K, (1979). Refi~rrnitzgspecial edirl.ntio:orz:Puliq imptementnliorz finm state level to street level, Cambridge, M A : MIT Press, Weick, K. E-.(19%). Educational organizations as XctoseXy coupled systems. Adnzr'nistmtz'veScience Quarterly 22, 1-19. Weick, K. E. (1982a). Administering education in loosely coupled schools. P?zi Delta Kappmtl, 63(IQ),6";7676. Weick, K. E. (1982b). Management of organizational change among lotjsely coupled elements. In P. Goodman (Ed,), Chnrzge in urgnlzizntions (pp. 375408). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. White, R,, &r Calhoun, M, (1987). From referral to placement: Teachers" perceptions of their responsibi1i"ces. Exceptional Cf~ildren, 53(5),460-469, Wise, A. E. (1979). Legislated le~rirzhg:The bureaz~cratizafionI?J: the Anzerzsan classm m . Berkeley: University of California 13ress, Woodward, J. (1965). Tndrjsdriai! organi;i;ntio~fs: flteofy and p~~ctice. Oxford: Oxfc~rd University Press. Wight, A. R., Cooperstein, R. A., Reneker, E. G., & Padiiila, C. (1982). Local i~rzpfemenfatl;onof EL.94-142: Fiml report ofn longit~sditznlstudy, Menb Park$CA: SRI International. Usseldyke, 1. (198q. Classificaticln af handicapped students. In M. Wang, M, Reynolds, & H, N7alberg (Eds.), Ht~dbookof special education: Reseaxlz and prczctice VC)].1.Oxfc2-irrd,England: Pergarnon. UsseLdyke, J., & Algazzine, B, f 1982).Critical issues iirz syecr'nl alzd remedial education, Bo>ston:Houghton Mifflin. Usseldyke, j., Thurlaw, M,, Graden, J,, Wesson, C., Algazzine, B., & Dens, S. (1983). Generalizations from five years of research on assessment and decision making. Exceptiozznt Educaliorz Qunrferly, 4(1), 75-94. Zucker, L. G. (1981).Imtitutic~naIstructure and organizational processes: The role af evaluation units in sehoclls. In A. Rank &r R, C. Williams (Eds.), Evalzrnthrz Makr'q. Los Angeles: UCLA Center far the Study of Evaluation. n ~ Becz'siort d

Learning Disability: Issues of Representation, Power, and the ~edicafizationof School Failure

Traditional fearning-disability theory grew out of pioneering work by Strauss and Lehtinen (1947). Their work was based on the observation that m y ct-tildren exhibiting academic and behavioral difficulties per'formed similarly to children who were known to have sustahed brah dmage. nerefore, they argued, if brain injury prociuced certain types of bebavior; it could be hferred that children who exhibited similar behavior may also have suffered brain in~urySubsequent researchers and practitioners were less tentative in applying this logic. Consepently, in the early 1960s, prevailkg pr&ssionaf opinion about children with normal hteiligence test scores and from reasonably advantaged famjlies wbo failed to achieve as expected rested strongly on the assumption that their learning problems resulted from s m e neurological abnormality or pathology. The term ""larni~~g disability" was introduced by Kirk in 1962 to describe students who '"displayed retardation, disordel; or dclayed development in one or more of the processes of speech, language, reading, writing, arithmetic, or other school su27jects resulting from a psychological handicap caused by possible cerebral dydunction andlor emotional or behavioral disturbances. It is not the result of mental setasdation, sensory depriv"tion or cdtlrrd or instructional factors" (Kirk, 1962).A variety of psychophysiological variables have been used to indicate brain pathology fur learning-disabled (LD) students, These have included inadequacies in motor devdopment (Kepart, 19RI)),visual and auditory perception (Frostlg, 1972; Wepman, 19581, psycholinguistic ability (Kirk & Kirk, 19711, and memory and information p r o c e ~ h g skills (Connor, 1983).

&er the ensuing years, a variety of labels have been invented to describe these children, including brain injured, hyperhetic, neurologicalXy irmpaired, dyslexic, and aphasic. A n u d e r of forma) defi.nitions have also been offered for learning djsabiiit~~ These diverse terms and definitio~~s have a common thread in that they all accept the basic tenet that learning disability results from some imperfection in the child's brain. In other words, the source of the child" failure is a medical condition. For example, the W r l d Federation of Neurology defined spceific developmental dyslexia as '% disorder manifested by difficulty in Ieaming to read despite conventicmal instruction, adequate intelligence and socio-cz~lturalopportunity. It is dependent upon fundamental cognitive disabilities which are fundammtally constitutional in origisr" "ritchely, 3970, p. 31). The concept that school faiiwe results from an underlying nettrological deficit was hrrnalized in public policy with the development of the Education for All Handicapped Childrrtn Act (PL 94-142). In 3977, federat =gulations (tl,S. Office of Education) subszllned thc variety of medico-educational terms applied to low-achieving children under one category, specific learning disability, uusing as a definition one not substantially difkrent front Kirk's origjnal suggestion. According to these regulalions, learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, read, spell or do mathematical caXcuXations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning prctblems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of mental retadatian, or emotional disturbance, or of environmental, culturaX, or economic disadvantage.

In addition, the regulations indicated that Ieaming disabili-ty is manifested by a significant discrqancy between the stuetent" ability or "potential" and his or her cttrrent level of achievement. In practice this has meant that formal identification of students with learning disabilities tjeneraily involves documentation of a discrepancy betwen their scm on an IQ test and their score on a standardized aehievemellt test (Fletcher, 1992; Stanovich, 1991; Szuszkiewicz & Symons, 1993). nerefore, four consistent themes emrge from definiticlns of learning disability: 1. Thert. is inadeyuacy or failure in a particular area of academfc or cognitive perbrmance.

2. I'he inadequacy is caused by a medical cmdition related to an or individual deficit or impairment that is generally ne~~rological psychol~gicalin naturtt, 3. I'he inadequacy is not caused by any other factcn wieiety =cognized as the basis of school bile such as sensory impairment, social or economic disadvantage, or lack of inteItigence.. 4. Learnhg disability can be ide~~tified by a discrepancy between achievement and potmtial, Thus Ihe dominant view of learning disability is that it results from an individual deficit inherent in the child and that it is mmifcsted by a discrepancy betwen achievement and potential as fndicated by intelligence. h other words, learning disability exists wi.lhin and is a characteristic of hdjviduals. Its origin. Lies within an individual" brain and as such it has an existence separate from the socid a d cufhxral expriences of the hdividud. It is seen to exist as a real physical entity hdependent of teachers, parents, or other environmental factors. This view of learning disability is intuitively appedirrg to tl-te naive observer Wt70 sees Chat despite teachers' and parents' best efforts, some chi.ldren fail to learn to read., write, or do mathematics. When young, these children may write letters backward; when reading, they st over words others have long since mastered. They m y be easilq. distracted and have difficulty settling and staying on task. Tkeir motor coordination a d handwriting may be poor or they may be left-handed. 'They may have troubl.e following diredions or tracking with their eyes fsom left to right across the page, Clearly it seems that these children's brains function differently from those of other children, It seems that this impaired newological functioning is rcllated to the intransigent djMicdties they have in school learning,

Early Psychological Critiques Despite the commonsense nature of the deficit-discrepancy view of school failure, it has not been cvithout criticism. Shortly after Kirk first articulated the term "learnhe; disability," data began to emerge that threatened the concephtal l i ~ ~sustaining ks the befief that brain pathology is the cause of learning-disabled children's fajlztrc, Traditional models of learning disability were based on the medical model. According to this model, symptms of a disease are a s i p of an underlying pathology. Accwate d2'agno"is will identify the pathology and indicate appropriate tmtmckzt. Treatment will destroy the pathology and eficct a cure. 'I'hus the refationships among symptoms, patholog~i,diagnosis, tredmnt, and c u e are sustained tbmugh a series of conceptually

htgical links. When applied to teaming disabffity, the medicat model suggests that school faiture (the s~mptonn)is due to an underlying neumlogical deficit (the pathology). Accurate diagnosis (psychological assessment) will indicate appropriate treament (provision of an individuaiized education program E X I T ] and place~nentin a remedid program). Remediatian should result in a cure (normal achievement). The pervasiwe nabre of the medical model is reflected in the discourse of the field. hadequate aebicvernent is referred to as a disability-tea&ing respmses to students am often referrcd to as clinical or remediui' interventions-and teachers employed specifically to work with studtrnts with learning di,sabilities are referred to as resource specialisb. Thjs medico-educational terminology not only reflects the conceptual basis for the field but is additionally attractive because it confers greater status and respectability thngt-1association with medicine (Bart, 1984). Unfortunately, when they have examined the practjces associated with g disability, researchers have generally been unable to sustain the logical coherence of the medical model, They have found a crihronic disparity between the formal defhition, the characteristics of students identified as learning disa:bled, and r e c o m n d e d diagnostic instmments or clinical procedures (Christenserr, Geher, t3t: Everhart, 1986).

Impaiment and Discrepancy: Finding the Risabitiv The first problem confronting the field has been a persistent difficdty in htcating the brain pathology responsible for learning disability. The identification of the neurological hpairment has proved so elusive that operationally the identification of a '"severe discrepancy" between ackievement and ability has been substituted for documented pathology (fritanovich, 19"a). Tfie presence of an organic disorder is then inferrd from the discrepancy This inference, however, has not been supported by data cdlected m identificat.im prcxedurrzs and characteristics of children la,heied learning disabled. Diagnostic pmcerdurcls indicate that children identified as learning disabled rarely show demonstrahie s i p s of neurotogical problems or distjnct forms of psychologicai-process di.sturbance. In fact, in many cases children identified by schools as learning disabled are virtually indistingufshable from other poorly achieving students. For exampl.e, Sbepard, Sfnith, and Vojir (1983) found that of the population of students identified by schools as I.earnin.g disabled, less than 1 percent demonstrated any "hard'beur~loof;icafsigns of brain abnormality, A small minori? oE stdents showed msre ambiguotls "soAMsigns (sometimes regarded as indkathe of neurodevelopmental differences rather than defects), 4.7 percent demonstrated clinical signs that were considered

"biljh-quality e v i d m e f k f processing deficits, and 11.1 percent pres e ~ ~ t ewhat d was termed ""medium-quality""clinical evidence of processh g defkits. The vast majority (97 percent) of students identified by schools as learning disabled in this study sboMied no signs of physiotogical i~spairment.Similarly Ysseldyke, Algozzine, and Epps (1983) reported that school-identified learnhg-disiihled and low-achieving children were indistinguishable on tests of neurological functioning. Standard psychological assessmer.~tWferentiated school-idemtified learning-disabled children from their '"nondisabled"" peers at about a chance level. A. series of more recent studies has indicated that the readhg-related cognitive problem is the s a m for both LP) and low-achieving poor readers-a difficdty in phonological processing (Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shankweiler, Katz, Z,iberman, Stuebing, Francis, Fowler, 8r Shaywitz, 1994; Stanovich, 13811). Similarly, in the area of learning problems in. mathematics, Russell and Ginsburg (W#) state that ""many LD students cogni.. rather than suffering from fundarnentai deficits are esse~~tiaily tively nomal" ((p. 243). The issw of establishing a severe discrepancy between potential and achievement has also been of concern. In mmy cases, assessment persollnel arc confused about what psychometric or clinical resuXts cmstihlte evidence of a '%severefViscrepancyInemeen acaeiemic achievement and pote~~tial, and thus there is substantial uncxpla,ined variabirity in school practices. Even if valid statistical and clinical, procedures were reliably applied to discriminating between learning-eiisabled stlldents and other low achievers, the critical decision on when a ""discrepancy" i s so ""svere" that students require differential treatment is largely based on a social judgment, one that cannot be made on a psychometric basis atone (Geher C;lr Semmel, 1982). Further, the use of IQ tests to establish a student" ability or potential appears fndefensibk given critical analysis of the psychometric properties of these tests (Coles, 197'8; Stanovich, 1991). Put simply, IQ tests measure studentskexisthg knowledge based on their past sociai and cdtural experiences, Nei&er IQ tests nor any other psychometric test can rwasure students' ability or pote11tiaX to learn in the future, The very notion that learning-disa:bIed childl-en fail to learn at a level ensurate with their potential is an intriguing one. Since the learning-djsahled population is assumed to be a suhgroup of low-acl-tieving children, the discrepancy position relies on a h r t h r assumption that some children (i.e., nonlearning-disabled low achiewers) should fail to learn in school while others (learning-disabled students) have greater "potential"" and shouId not fail. According to advocates for the brainpathobgy view of learning disability, some children, due to a disorder in

'%asic psychologicai processes," have p o t a i d beyond that indicated by their lokv levels of achievement, Mowever, logic would seem to suggest that potential for achievement by neurolagically irnpaired students would be limited by virtue of their neurological deficits. Leming-disability "spc.ciali&s" hhne givel~scant attention to the reasonde psjtion that if neurological impairment produces poor learning, then neurologicaily impaired shetents who etemtlnstrate poor learning are achfeving according to their "potential."" This contradictim is lurther illustrated by the widespread belief that learning disability not only is a childhood condition but persists throughout life (American Association of Children and Adults with ]&D,l"35). h other words, children do not recover from learnhg disabilities as they grow into adults, The condition is permanent. Finally, concern has bee11 expressed about the difficulty in linkizlrg learning d.isabili.ty with specific hstmctional interventions, The medical model msts on the assumption that correct diagnosis indicates correct treat~~ent, Thus identification of a learning disabihty should indicate effective instructional interventions. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There has been a failure to identify instructional methocis that are specifiMIith learning disabilities. Rather, the= is subcally effective for stude~~ts stantial overlap in effective hstruction for students with learnhg disabjlities and other groups of students identified as mildly disabled (e.g., mildly intdlectually disabled, emotionaily disturbed) @lgozzine, Algozzine, Mossink, & fSykes, 19M; Morsink, IQ&). At the same t i m , the heterogeneity of the group of students identified as learning disabled are s~~ccessful with some means that some instructional interve~~tions learnhg-disabled students but not others (Mossink, Thomas, & SmiZrhDavis, 1987). Fhally effecifive "instmc.tian for learning-disabled students is fudmentally the s m e as effective instruction for normlly xhieving students. For example, Scmggs and Mastropieri (1992) identified a range of effective instructionat strategies for mildly handicapped students placed in minstrearn classrooms,.Generally, these strategies are the sarnc as those recommended for nondisabled students, Thus k~stmctionthat is g disabiliies is also effective for other effective for students with lea low-acihieving stdents and fnr normally achieving students. In summary, an increasing number of investigators have shown that a variety of traditimai assumptions about learning cfisability are untenable when applied to school practice. As a result, there have been some unusually strident expressions of dissatisfaction with the continued search for psychologicat methods for discwering neurologicat and other within-student causes of learning fai(urcl. For exampk, Vsseldyke, A1gozzine, and Thurlow (1983) have called practices in the identification and treatment cJf learning disability ""indefensible," and Mgozzille has

called the category "hdicrous" (cited in Tuckezr, Stevms, & Usseldyke, 1983). Hawever, although these and other criticisms af practice have sueceeded in arousing concern, they "nw ggenerally failed to explain either the forces that created this current policy dilemma or the phenomenal groklp'th and variability in classifying chjldrrr~nas learnkg disabled. Psychcllogically oriented empiricists who have cataloged contradictions and inconsistencies between tearning-disability themy and practice have not questioned the fundamental premises upon WSlich learning djsitbility theory rests. Following the logic of the field., they have established that the system does not work the way it should, but they have been unable to explain why this is so or to suggest how it can be changed. Despite documnted inconsistencies, the field has clung steadfastly to the assumptions underlying the medical model, holding out its prctmise of curative or remedjal treatment. It has erected the edifice of learning disabiliw as an innate condition. Correct '"diagnosis" is assurned to lead to '"prescriptiveff educational, psychological, and sometimes pharmacological ""t.eat~aent."m e data do not support these assumptions,

Learning Risabitiv as Social Practice The inherent contradictions in learning-disabiliq theory and practice can be explained only by examining the social and cultural processes through which leaming disabiliv is created. These processes mediealize school &lure by transf arming diversity in achievement jnto individual patholg disability is created ogy or 'Qisability" H~wcver,the idea that lea through social agency rather than neuropathology runs counter to the cmrnonsense view of learning disabiliq. Consequently social analyses have had a limited hnpact in shaping academic debate and understanding of the f eld. For example, Dudley-Marling and Dippo (1995) suggest that published responses to social critiques range from "indifference to defensivmess to ridicule to near hysteria. The field of learning disabilities, although enriching itself by clfawing on various traditims in medicine and cognitive psychology remains isolated from developments in sociolil7guistics, critical tbeory, anthropology kminist studies, litmcy educat-ion, phjlosophy and literary studies that challenge basic under.standings in learning disabilities" ((p. 908). According to alternative perspectives, learning disability is a form of social practice. identification and labelhg of stude~ntsas learning disabled is not so much the hevitable consevence of students-inherent neuropathology but is more the result of social processes that occur withh classroams, schoals, and wider communities. For example, at a broad societal level, identifiration of students as learning disabled is often driven by funding and policy pressures rather than the characteristics

of students. Hocutt, Cox, and Pelosi (191f4) f o n d that identification of students as "learniing disabled," "educable mentally retarded," or "emotionaIly disturbed" was strmgly influenced by the policies of the local education authority The major inRumces on these policies were "federal and state l w s and regutations, funding a n o m t s and formulas, pnlfes-. s i m l philosophy / trainiq, and.the charactenstics of the students served by a school" (p. 2). Algozzhc and Korinek (1985) found fiat during t.he period from 1,978to 1982 there was a significant i n c ~ a s ien the nurnber of sbdents classified as leamhg disabled and a commensurate: decrease in fie number identified as educable mentally retarded. Tucker (1980) exambed the ethnic composition of special education categories. He found that the shift in identification of students horn educable mentally retarded to learning disabled could be accounted fnr by fie classification of large numbers of African American studmts. Thus it appears Chat as the overrepresentatjonof ethnic minority students in the category of educable matally ~tarcjedwas critiqued, these sbdents became overrcspres e ~ ~ t as e dtearniing disabled. .Al&ough there has been considerable debate about the adeyuacy oi definitions of learning disabilit)i, research has demcmstrated &at to the extmt that chi%drenwho are identified as leanling clisabled clo share a c defining characteristic, it is that they exhjbit an unacceptably low level of academic achiewement (Algozzine & Vsseldyke, 4983; Kavale, Fuchs, & %ruggs, 1994),Yet the ahievement pmfiles of children identified as leaming djsablcd may vary drannatieally. For example, Mehim, Hermeck, and Meihls (4986) fomd that in one school district many children who were idewified as Iearni,ng &sitfsl.ed did not m e t the achievement criteria reyuirctd, for identification. In the same claasraams f m which these learning-disabled children had come, there were numerous children who fitted the criteria perfeclly but had not becm identified. Similarly, in a study we are currently undertaking in Australia, we have found that within classrooms there is substantial overlap in the achimement pat-lerns of students identified as having karning difficufties (the Australian term that corresponds to learnjng disability) and thme of normally achieving students. Although the mean levels of a c h i e v e ~ e for t identified students was lower than for nonidentified students, hmany cases studmts who were regarded as normally achieving performed below students who were iltentified as experiencing learning djlficdties. 'The pattern becamc more extreme whe11 exannined across schools, In mmy cases the mean level of achievemmt for the identified group in one school was higher than the mean for normally achieving st-dentsin other schools. Thus it appears that a learning disability is not defined by th essential characteristics of the students who are identitied. Rather, it reflects how

the achievement and cognitive characteristics are explained and ccmceptualized or rcpresenled in the classsoom or school.

Learning Disability and the Politics of Representation Social categories do not have a single essential meaning. Rather, meaning is ascribed to peofie, events, and objects as a result of social activity. Mehan 0943) gives the example of the many ways in w:hich nomsident laborers can be =presented: as "'guest workers," as ""potential citizens," as ""undocumented workers,'" and as ""iflegal aiicns." Each form of represe~~tation defines a different social identity For example, "guest worlCerSIf can make a useful economic contribution to the workfarce, whereas ""ilfegal aliens" are foreign, &reatenll;g, and socialZy undesirable. Similarly, people with a physical disability (for examplc, wl.m use a hvhee1chai.r) may be represented in many ways. They may be represented as brave and heroic in the face cJf advcsrsity, as pathetic and -&ss cripples, as needy and helpless victints of tragedy, or as mennbers of a socially disempowered and.oppressed group. The ways in which people arc. represmted has a powerful influence in shaping their identities and opportunities, Carrier (1990) argues that iorrns of repmsentation for disabiliy eznerge from culturd understandi n g ~that "me rttflected in the ways that people evaluate and treat those who are labelled as handicapped, consistently denigrati.ng their performance and restricting their freedom of actionff(g. 213). Issues of mprc.sentatim are profoundly political in that they are embedded wilhin a set of pokver rcf.lat.imships. Fmda.mem.t.aito the hvays in which groups of people are represenkd are questlions about who is represented, h w they art? =presented, who decides the form of ~presentation, and what the consequences are of that form of rczpresemtation for the individual. The way in which school success and failure, as well as abiliq and inability, are rep~sentedis embedded in issues of power. In other words, "Mentd abifity is a cultural construction that reflects t k poljtical power of different sets of people to h p o s e their own evaluation of people's attitudes and behaviours" (Carrier, 19911,p. 2M). For example, etecisions about hocv childre12 who fail in sekools arc represented are overwhelmingly made by teachers, school administrators, and school psychologists. The children who art- labeted and their p a m t s are reiatively powerless in the process. As with other sorrial phenomena, differences in school learning, particularly schoot failure, may be rczpresmted in many ways. 'I'hroughout history, students who divlayed matisfactory levels of achievment have vari.ously been represented as illiterates, dullards, or morons or idiots; as lazy or as socially disaei\iantaged; as academicatly gifted underachievers

who art. bored or unmotivated. Atthou* these terms wary, they all focus on a hvithin-child deficit responsible for school probletns.

Failure, Schools, and Social Justice The need to =present school failure as something that resides wiihin the neurology of the child or in his or her social or culkrral background is deeply e~abeddedwithh the nature of the school as a social hstitution. Schools are barged with providk~gequitable educatioslal opportunity to all students. Thus it is essmtial that schools be pexeivd as socially just hstitutions m d that differelzces in student achievement arise from factors rclated, to studcnts and their backgrounds rather than from factors related to the structure of schools. Schools h x t i o n on a view of sncial justice elnbedded cvithh a notion of individual merit. One notable, recent advocate of this view was Nozick (19%). Nozick argued that critical to sociatly just practices is the pmtection of the individual. right to fair and open contpetition and an emtitlement to the products of that competition. In other wards, equity =quires free and open ccampetiticm so that the most meritorious individual succeeds. It is the justice of competition-the way competition is conducted-not its outcomes, that is critical. This entitlement view of social justice is central to the ways schools fuxzction. Eqraality (nr s w n c s s ) of treatment is provided to t?lj students in the form of standard school sites, curricula, and instructional provisitm, Schcrds are seen as essmtially neutral in the distribution of educational opportunities. Schools must be seen to provide everyone with a fair and equal opportunjty for educational resources and. attainxnent. They must he seen to favor no particular individual or group of s t u b t s , ensurhg that students can openly compete for the benefits of educational success. Thus the distribution of outcomes (the success and f a i l u ~of hdividual students) is supposedly merit based. It is befieved that those who are most deserving-based on personal effort, talent, os "intelligcrncef'-achieve school success through fair and open cmpetition. Acccrrciing to this merit-based view of schooling, if school success is the appropriate reward for the most deserving studenls, school faitztre is logiralfy the student" own hilure. Althollgh failjng studcnts arc represented in many ways, in each case failurt. is explained in terms of agencies external to the school. For schools to be seen as fair m d just, in terms of this view of social justice, they must maintaitl the legitimacy of the competitive processes by accounting for persistent. failure of students in terms of defiriencies of the student, home envir ent, or society, To sustain the meritocratic assrtmptions of traditional schooling, schools must explain failure through

factors outside the control of schools. tn this cmtext the concept of learning dishility constitutes one legitimating mechanism; student fail~treis caused by an hdividual defrzct or pathology rather than by inequitable competitive practices whereby specific groups of students persistently experience disproportionately high f ailme rates (Carrier, t 983; Christensen, Gerber, & Everhart, 1986)Learning disability helps legitimate or sustain exist* school practices by providing a mechanism to attribute school failure to a deficit within the child rather than the structure and organization of schoois, A learnhg disabitiq label implies a pathological conditicm intrinsic tcr the individual; it fails to recognize that the concept of disability is a social constmct, Rather than being a nmprohlematic feature of the individual, learning disabiliv occrtrs as a conseyucnce of diverse student characteristics interacting wifh the hitghly cowraining demands of the classmom. Thus it can be a p e d that many students have been identified as learning disabled, stigmatized, or placed in segregated programs not because their personal characterktics necessitate this but becawse schooling is structured in such a way that it cannot acconnmodate student diversity beyond very narrowly p~scribedlimits, The lockstep, grade-based system of schooling requires a homogeneous school population to lunction efficiently (Skrtic, 1.991). F r m this perspective, it can be a p e d that schooling its& is disabling, that its lack ol flexibility in accommodating a diverse range of: student attributes helps create learniag disability. In this sense, student disability results from organizational pathology rather than student pathology. However, because tbe assmptions underpinning competitive meritocratic co~nceptsof social justice allow the mamer h which schools function to remain mexamhed, mmy educators continue to identify the sourile of sh;ldentsf difficulties as defrcts within individuals, maski,ng thc role of educational systems in creating problems and lfailture (Carries, 1983). Wistorically and before universal compulslrry schooling, it was accepted that illiteracy was the mark of poverty and lower socioeconomic class. Universal schooling meant that even the poor were gben opportunities to learn tcr read. However, opportunity did not translate into educationd attaiament-. Universal schoohg resulted in large clifferemces in acadcmic achievement among studcnts that corresponded to their social backgrounc3s. Social class i n t e r p ~ k d as "social deprivation'kr ""cltural disadvant;age'\o~nthued to provide m explanation and justification for failure, fn other words, for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds, failure in reading was explicable. However, the belief that fie freqllernt failure of ehildren from low socioczconomic backgrounds was due to their own social deprivation or cultural disadvantage again masked t-he relationship between school practices, which systematkally

favomd children with particular sociat and cultural b a c k p m d experiences, and inequitable act.tievememt outcomes (Carrrier, 1983). 'Thus the school continued to be seen as impartial in the allocation of academic success and failure. While the cmcept of social disadvantage served to j~xstifythe failure of s o m childm, there remavled in schools a group of c b i l d ~ nwhuse failure appeared inexplicable. They simply etid not achieve accorciing to their 'J"ptential.'"Learning disability was introduced as a within-child pathology to expfain this residual failurethe cases that could not be accounted for by inaGietyuate intelligence or cultural background (Christensen, Geher, 8r Everhart, l"386). Definitional contradictions and inconsistencies emerge from the political agenda embedded in this form of representation, The exclusionay criteria (that the child's problerns do not emerge from visud, heari,ng, or motor handicaps; from mental retardation or emotional, disturbance; or from envirtmmental, cuttufal, or economic disadvantage) are explici.tly designed to eliminate competing forms of representation. Discrepancy det-initims support the rcp~sentationof the student as having the potential to achieve weli when he or she is viewed accord% to cowentional representations of failtlrc (that the chjld. is uninte:llifiel", socially or economically disadvantaged), Representation of school failure as a learning disaloiliq has the d d e d advantage &at it has a "no-fault, no-Mme dame.'' If failure resuits from a ot be blmed for lazhess or lack of neurdogical hpairment, the child c intelligencef parents c ot.be blalned for providing an inadequate home e~~viro~~ment, m d teachers c be blamed for providb~gh~adequateor inappropriate ins-t-mction,L g disslbiljl-ylets everyone off the hook, However, there is a price to pay for the c o d & dforded by the learningdisability label. lt distracts aHentim from classroom and schod factors that could account for failart. and that, if identified, could lead to prclductive anci enduring solutions to students' probkms.

Learning Disability and Classroom Life The processes by which learning disability functions to legitimate inequitable school outcomes are situated in the day-to-day lives of teachers and st-uetents, Carrier (1990) suggests that the social processes by M;hich a child" learning becomes represented as learning disability are "submerged in the rou'cine of teachersf work and thoughts [so that] frequently there is no call for teachers to articulate them" (p.213). These covert social processes stmd in stark contrast to Che formal, institutional processes where pupil performance is trmsformed from "normal" to ""learning disabledf9through the pr~1~1l.d~~e.l of fdentificatim, psychological assessment, and educational pf,

'The explicit procedures for idmtification, classification, and treatment of a leamhg disability are legislatively prescribed. They involve mechanisms for teacher referral, noplhiased assesmenf, and developrncnt of an iirrdividruzlized education progmm (IEP). 'The IEl' is developed in an ZEP meeting, wlnich involves a num:ber of participants including Che dassroom teacher, parents, and school psychologist and often the principal, specialeducation teacher, anci possibly other professionats. These mandated procedures are ktended to safeguard the rights of thEJ child and to elnsttre that idcntificatim of a learnhg disability is based on impartial evidence. They are. also cltesiped to ensure that educational prouision for the learning-disablcd child is appropriate. C)f cowse they are grotlnded on the assumption that learning disability is a real, physical cmtity tkat merely requires accurate idt-mtification, At a superficial level, these procedures are kansparemtly fajr, politb callJr and socialZy neutral, m d in the best interests of the child. They are designed to seek out and classify the learning disability and to respond to it by proteding Che child's rights to a fair and equal educationat o p p r tunit-y, In practice, the transparmt fairness sf the process is an illusion. McDermott (1993) argues that '"there is no such thing as I:,Q only a scxial practice of displayhg, noticixzg, hcunnenting, remedjating and exptaining it" (p.272). In other words, the procedwal safeguards in fact provide a formal mcehanism for the ereation of learning disability. They establ.ish the procedures by which schuoX failurc is seen to mflect the qualities oi the child rather than political processes where children are sorted, elassilied, and placed according to culturally determined, institutionalized procedures. U~~fortunately relatrively few researchers have systematically investigated the social processes underphnkg leanling disability. Mehan and Mcr>ermott are notable exceptions to the rule, Using discourse analysis they hawe exami~~ed the clatisroom processes by which lea becomes ~ e o g ~ ~ i zlabeled, e d , and treated. Discourse anaiysis refers to the examjnatim of patterns of comunicatian that characterize social contexts. It explore verbal and nonverbaf interaction and both written and spoken language and the ways peaple use communication to pursue particular social purposes. This work provides telling insights into how g disability is socially rather than neurologicalty created.

ldentifica.licm and 1Refemal of Learning Disability Identification and rclferral of the child. for assessment. by the teaehcr is embedded within the social interaction patterns of the classroom. Xdentification as educationally normal or devimt, bright s r dull, learning disabled or normally achievling, is not an objee.live reflectio~~ of the inherent

attributes of the child. Numerous researchers have found that teachers refer many students who do not fit legislative criterj,a and that students who meet psychomtricalily prescribed cfiteria remain undetected in the classroorn wehan et d., 19867; 5hepard et al., 1983). Hargreaves, Hester, and MelIor (197fi) argue that identification and referral of pupils can be understood only within the context of ongoing cliassroom. inreraction, For example, beillg identiiied as a disruptive student is not an issue Of the level of noise a student creates. Rather, it d e p s ~ d on s how skilled the student is in negotiating the classroorn social organizatinn-for exmple, s o w students are sirnply better at not being caught at making noise at times prohibited by the teacher. Similarly T a t t u ~ (2982) ~ found that h the process of identifying a disrupthe pupil there are many pupils in schools whose behavior is "equally dismptive but is werlooked, m h h i s e d , toferated, or :handfed dilfercntly, and so they are not cmsidered for special phcernent" ((1982,pp,183-384). In his case study of "Adam," McDermott (1993) found that leamint; disability was less an hadequacy inside Adam" head and more a cmseyuence of "the arbitrarhess of the tasks Adam, is asked to work on . . . and the i n t e r a c t i d dilemmas thrown in Adam" way as he moves psychometric criteria, through school" (p. 279. Acczordhg to traditio~~al, Adam qualified as Iearnislg disabled; however, McDermott found that in everyday situations, Adam's "disability" "disappeared. ""He proved in every way cornpet&, and,more than most of the chjtdrem he could be wonderfully charxnjng, particularly if there was a good story to td1" (p. 278). In ctassroom tasks with low c o p i t h e liemand Adam performed casocial emvirarmment. For example, pably provided he had a s~~pportive when working with a supportive peer, he could complete tasks successfully, sometimes reading instmctions independently. Hwever, fE the interpersonal environment became more hostile, Adam's performance deteriorated dramatically. Rather than completing the task, Adarn concmtrated on avoiding the appearance of incompeknce. U'dort-unately, use of an jncompetence-avoidance strategy merely compounded. the pmblern, For example, Adam made e v e v effort to avoid ~ a d i n g instmctions in situations where others might observe any errors. 'Thus rnistakes became inevitabte. As McDermott notes, "ReaclSng 'teaspoon-or 'tablespoon3ecomes more lkelyr not because Adam's head does not work, but because he barely looks at the page and ordinary resowces for solutio~zof the problem are djsallocved""p. 285). Central to this cycle of avoidance and failure was public hudliatim based on exposure of the learning disability. McUermott rt;ferred to this humilidion as a "degrada.t.ion ceremny." Adam consistently acted to avoid such exposure; but, McDemott argues, once Adam" learning disability had been identified and named, it became a visible element of the

classroom discourse. '"Adam's LD generally played to a packed house.. stimulate, make visible m d Everyone h e w how to look for, recog~~ise, dependjng upon the circurnstanccs keep quiet about or expose Adam's probtem'" (p. 287). Thus ""looking for A d m f s LD has become something of a sport inAdam's class" (p. 291). His difficulties lay not so much in the infierent difficully of material he was required to learn or his own inherent inability tc:,deal with that matr?rial but in the swial organization and patterns of interaction withius the classroom, Adads difficmlv arose because he "cannot addwss the material wiChout worving whether he can get it straight or wheLher anyone will ncrticr if he does not"' (p,291). The notion that persistent failure results in reluctance to engage in learnjng, which h turn inhibits further learning, is well established in the litcrilCure. For example, VVhite (1959) developed a theory of efkctance motivation. White suggeskd that the developntcnt of egectance motivation was cyclic, kelings of pleasure were derived from experiences of success c ~ rcompetence in learning. These feelings of competence encouraged greater participation in future learning tasks. Increased participation i~~crezlsed the likelihood of success, and the cycle continued, Similarly Rmdura (1993) has argued that success in leamb~g rcls~dtsh feeiings of self-eficacy that fxilitate learning in a nu1nbt.r of ways: Children set more challenging goals and employ better strategies to achieve those goals, including persistence. hilure, in contrast, destroys a student' sense of self-efficacy and results in the avoidance ol learning tasks. D w c k (19%) argued that frequent failure can lead to a sense of helplessness or a percehed "externaf locus-of-control," Students who of ten, fail. feel; that they have little influence over the consequences of their actions and come to '"arbour doubts about their ability yet, because ability is h k e d to their sense of worth, they have little chojcc hut to rnaneuver to avoid failure (Covhgtm, 1985, p. 391.). Stanovich (1986) refers to the "Matthew effect": Many children who become labeled learning disabled initially fail to learn to read because they lack critical prerequisite phmologicd awareness, As a result of their early failure, these children awclfd reading tasks and so .miss opportunities to practice their emerging reading skills, exacerbating the initial probfem. The cycle of failure and avoidance continues mtil failure becomes chronic and the problem fntrart;?ble. Numerous studies have found that many stude~~ts with learning disabilities demonstrate learned helplessness, an external locus-of-control, and a lack of self-efficacy (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1982; Seligman, 1975). Mowevcr, traditio~zalanalyses ado" an individual-deficit perspective, attributing the cyde of failure, lack of self-efficacy, avoidance of tasks, and fur&er failure to the characteristics of the individual..Findiz~gsof an ex-

ternal locus-of-control, low self-esteem, or lack of self-efficacy are seen as another manifestation of the learning-disablcd student's pathology. McDermottk amlysis difiers from traditional perspectives in that he suggests that this cycle is context degmdmt. FaiZure on a task is not the result of individual factors operating in isolation. Rather the o~~tcome depends on the way the task is structured, the availabiliv of social support, the presence of arbitrary restrictions on how the task can be accomplished, and the scruthy of others as the task is performed. Moreover, Mcr>ermotr argues that these social processes play a critical role in creating and sustaining the disability, Testing and Assessment:

Assessment plays a crucial role in the classification and treatment of learning disabilit): Both public policy and traditional learning-disabil.i@ theory are based m the assramptions that assessment is scientifically objective and socia:lly asld cdurally neutral and that assessment instruments measurcl a child" abilities and capacities independent of thre social contexts of the school and the child's community, These asszxmptions are erroneous from hnlo perspectives. First, the test instruments themselves, far from representing culhrally neutral. measurczs, are culhxrally and socialty discriminatory (Coles, 197K). Perfomance on stmdardjzed tests depends on m individztays access to the knowledge and skills the tests measure. &owledge is not s ~ i a l l ym d culhrally neutral. Rather, differat social, e b i c , and racial gmups have differat access to particular types of howledge. Standardized tests measure cttftural knowledge associated, with the white xritddle class. As Gipps and Muvhy (1994) state, "The content of IQ tests is riddled with general cultural howledge m d are just as unfair to chjldre~~ from xninority g r o ~ ~ cvithjn ps 71). a culture as they are if used. across diffetrent cultures" Second, the assessment situation itself is a form of social activity. It requires extended f aceto-f ace interaction between the tester and the student. This can have a marked effect on the performance of the student. For example, Cipps and Murphy (1994) suggest that the chamter of the tester can exert a significant influence on stud&sf performance. Students score lower if the tester is aloof and rigid in his or her interpersonal manner. If the tester is warm and personable, students tend trt gain higher marks. Testers can clommunicate h subtle ways their expedations as to whether th students will do well or poorly, and students' pperformances tend to reflect tbrse ercpectaticms. Similarity of baekgrounds between students and the tester can also affect student perfnrmce. Students from minority ethnic or racial backgrounds d.o better when tested by a person from the s m e background (Wxtsm, 3972).

Thus tests c m measurc. a di\.ersity of factors u n ~ l a t e dto the k n o d edge Chey are intended to assess. It is very difficult to determine the impact these factors have on any particu%arstudent's score. However, they effectively contaminate the scores, resulting in the possibility of unfair cmclusians if the test is used as the sole basis for decisittnmaking. Because of its social nature, the assessment process invdves a "panoply of unspoken assumptions, covert cues and responses" (Carrier, 1990, p. 21)" Carrier argues that psychologists bring to assessmetnt situations a set of expectations and assumptions that refZect their own social. and cultural backgmmds. n e s e culturat assrtmptions filter &eir perceptions of thc student's behavior and subsepently help shape their analysis and interpretation of student performance. In his anaiysis of Mm%learning disability, McDermott (1993) found that the testing sjtuation was the most arbitrary and demanding oZI the social environments Ad.am encountered. AIthough his performance in many situatims was competent, during testing ""Adam stood out fmm his peers not just by his dismal performance hut by the wild guesswork he tried to do'"(p, 279). In many situations the learning disability was invisible. ""Adarn can blend into the crowd and do what he has to do withtestg out myone worrying about the quality of his mind" (p. 280). D ~ ~ r i n ing, the disabiliv became hig%tlyvisible; he became ""fearning disabled." M a e n n o t t argues that mce the search for the learning disability is launched, "'once our hquiry is narrocved down to the question of what is wrong with this or that child," evidence for an ~ e mdeficit t within the child is available " w h e ~ v e one r looks" (p. 281). h essence, McDermott demonstrates that testkg situatiotns represent an arlsitrary and highly cmstraixled social envir ent, In other environments Adam can draw on a rmge of copitive, social, and hguistic resources to achieve his goals: He c m seek advice, employ his own readhg skills, and dialogue with peers to joint problem solve. Testirrg represents an arbitrary sihration in that the rmge cJf options normalty available to him are artificially constrained. It was this arbikariness that c ~ a t e dhjs learning dlsahility McUermott found that ali the children in his study constantly appeared to avoid tasks t-heybeljeved would be too difficult for them, They worried about appearing incompetent and offered excuses if caught not knowing something important. However, in Adam's case this fairly ubiquitous behavior became a sign of his disability. D ~ ~ r i ntestkg g it became part of the fumalized evidence used to demonstrate his inherent deficit, i?ncDern-tottnoted that iadam barely attempted to engage in the assessmetnt tasks. Given that they had hem defined as "difflcul,t," he simply used any extrmeous infornation he could identify to guess an answer. For example, "If he has to choorie between cup and spoon fm the mswer,

he says, 'Cu-um-spoonf slowv enough to pick the answer that the tester to" (p. 281). seems to respo~~d Despite the impact of social and cultural factors on the assessment prwess, assessment infornation is generally p r e ~ n t e das *ective, scientific information that represel~tsunbiased evidence of the students' disability. The social nature of assessment becomes masked by a cloak of scientific infatlibility, As a result, assessment infornation is given a privileged status in decisionmaking proceme that affect the labeling and treatnrtent of students. This is particularly the case in ZEP meetings.

Individualized Educational Planning The legislativcl intent of the E P mandate was to provide a safeguard mechanism to ensure that decisians regmdhg the identification of disability were based on sound, objecthe criteria and that decisions &out the placement and provision of instructional support were made in the best interests of the chi.l,d.It was assmed that through, a process of zlegotiation around nondiscriminatory assessment, the participants in the meetillg would esthlish fair and equitable educational provision for the child. Howevel; IEP meetings have never functioned in the way intmded. They are intensely political. Ysseldyke, 'Thurlow, Graden, Wesson, Algozzine, and Del10 (1983) report that IEP team. decisions often functioned to do little mre than verify the problems identified by the teacher. Ysseldyk;, Atg~zzine,fiehey, and Graden (1982) suggest that the most potent: inflzricnce in IEI3 decisionmking was "teacher squeak,""'This was an index of the degree to which the teacher wanted the removal of th student from the classroom. Reynolds (19;ii;l)r e f e r ~ dto the Elf team decision meeting as a " c ~ i t d a t i o n~OnfCrefl~e.'' Mtthan et al. (1986) report that the discollrse in TEP conferences focused on ensuring that all participants (partiicutarly parents) acceded to the decision that had atready been m d e during severd informal meetings between the professional stakeholders, For example, the school psychologist and ciassroom teacher often m t to talk over the implications of assessment results and the nature of teacher cmcems about the child's classroom behavior. Flowever, although these informal meethgs appear to be the most powerful infruence in shaping decisions about the child, they are rarely, if ever, referred to in the formal IEP meetbg. Rather, the TEP meeting becomes an avenue to selectkely provide ixrformation that substantiates the decisions already made. m h a n (1993) argues that wilhin an IEP meeting, the political combatants attempt to capture the dmjnant mode of representation, Because oi the assumptions of inherent deficit that underpin the medical ~presenta-

tion of learning disability the psychological view, embedded in the medical modet, has privileged status- Mehan provides an exmple ol an IEP meeting for "Shane,"where the participants provided c m p e t h g representations of 5hane and his achievement. The psychologi" reprltsenkd Shane as having "troubles" and "pmblem*" For exam*, she reprted that ""h cannot switch channels" and ""has some fears and anxieties." Thus Shane's diEiculties were seen to reside clearly "beneath his skin, between his ears" (p. 255). 'The teaeber's rczprcsemtation also focused on a within-child deficit: "The fine motor types of things are difficult for him" (p. 255). However, the teacher cmtextualized Shane" behavior, a c h w l edging that his achievements varied depex~dislgon circumstances and tasks. "He" got a very creative mind and expresses hhself well, orally and verbally and he" pretty alert to what" gohg on. . . . I've been noticing that it's just his writjng m d tihings that he has a block with. h d he can mread and comprehend some thirtgs when I talk to him" ((p, 252). The mother's rep~sentationwas mom cmtextrtalized as well as historically embedded. She saw Shane to be developing aver time: ""As a small child, he didn? [write] at all, . . . FXe was never htesested h sitting in my lap and having a boo%;read to him . . . which I think is part of it. [Nocv] Shane, at night, lots of times hc comes home and hc'll write or draw He%really doing a lot. . . . He sits down and is writkg love notes to his girlfriend""(p. 253). Within Che decisimmaking process &out Shane's performnce, these competing forms of representation werc not equal. The psychologist's view had privileged status and was p ~ l i t i c d ythe most p w e r f d . The psycholagist's recommendations were accepted unchallenged. Mehan argues that psychological language gained its authority from its technical and y?xasi-scimtifirtemhology. ' k e psychologist's =presentation of the child as disabl.ed was boisterd by discourse punctuated with evidcnce of ""sientific'kobservation: "I hand that he had a verbill IQ of 115, perfnrmance of 111, a full scale of 115, so he's a bright child. tle had very high scores in informdion whieh is his long-term mexnory Vocabulary was also considerably over average, good detail awareness . . . scored in ~ a d i n gat 4.1, spelling 3.5 and arithetic 3.0. . . . I gave him the Bender Gestalt and he had six errors, h d his test age was 7.0 to 7.5 [and] his actual age is 3 so. . . " (p. 251). The psychologist presented her techical account of Shane" disability as an uninterrupted monologue. Although she cmsiste~~tly used techical jargon that was impenetrable to the other participants, she was never asked to clarify terms or chaltenged on her interpretation of her numbers as indicative of learning djsability*In contrasl, both the teacher and parent, with their morc cmtextualized, representation of s a n e %skills, we= constantly intempted with requests for clari.Eicationsand explication.

The psyChdcrgica1 view dominated to t-he exclusion of all other views of Shane's in the processes of identification, labeling, asld treatme~~t learning disability. Prior to the meeting, the teacher argued that as Shane had demonstrated significant improvement from the time he was initiatly referred, she no longer Mt Chat placement in spceial educatio~~ was warrmted. Shane" s&th expressed concern that placement in a special program woulLi be stigmatizing and that she did not want her child removccf from the regular classroom. Despite these competing opinions, the decision to place Shane in a "pull-out'"rogram for s t d e n t s with g disabilities was accepted fn the meeting with& etissent or dism e View of s a n e cussion. In other words, by che end of the meeti~~g, prevailed-that he was learning disabled, IEP meetings can be characterized as highy political environments where competing represe~~tatiorrs of the student: are negotiated so that one emerges as dminant. This view then dcfbes the nature of the child (learning disabled or not learning disabled) a d the future educational opportu~~ities open to him or her. mese analyses contest the view that learning disability is a purely physical disorder that resides within the head of the child. bther, lea g disability is constructed through social activity within schools. It is created as participants seek to hterpret and explajn student behavior. This is not to suggest that shdents do not vary in their learning and achievement, Clearly some students karn more quicMy and more eMectively than others, However, the interpretations of these differences arc essentially social in nature, The classification of one student" level of achievement as "acceptable,'bnot:herfs as "belokv grade level," m d another" as "'learning disablelt"" is dependent on social activity. In this way, failure is medicalized and dis;rbility is created. As we have seen, these processes e m r g e from l.kc fabric of the day-to-day lives of students, teachers, school psychologists, and administrators. In summary, rather than constituting an individual neurological deficit, learning disability is a social category. It fuxzctions to legitimate school failuse for students whose failure would, otherwise be hxplicablc. It is created through the social practices of schooling, but medica3izh g school failure m d attributing it to hdividual pai-hology mask the role of these social processes and. hinder the development of more ehctive solul;ions to the problem.

Ref erenees Algozzine, B,, & Karinek, L. (1985). Where is special educatian for students with high p~valencehandicaps going? Exceptional Ghildreu, 57,38&39'7.

Tssraes of Represenfatkn, 1702vel; nlzd rlze Medicnlizlition I?J:Sci'laol Failure

247

ALgozzine, B., & Usseldyke, J.E. (1983). teaming disabilities as a subset of schaol failure: The over-sophistication of a concept. Excqfimnl Children, 50,242-246. Algozzine, B., AXgozzine, K., Morsink, C., & Dykes, M.K. (1984). Szrmtna~yof the 2983-84 ESE clnssroo~rtobserz7ation, E I S ~ CCTKER. F ~ ~ Gainesville: University of Florida, Department of Special Education. American Association b r Children and Adults with teaming Disabilities (1985). Definitions of the condition of specif c learning disabilities. AGLD Riezus Briefsr 58, 1-3. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Edumtio:orznltPsyehologkf, 28,147'-148. Bart, B. (1984). The differential diaposis of special education: Managing social patholc>gyas individual disability Tn L. Bartun & S. Tc>mXinson (Eds.), Special Edz-rcation alzd Social Interests, London: Crook Helm. Carrier; J. (1983). Masking the social in ducational knc>wledge:The case of learnof St7cioEogy, 88, 948-974, ing disability theory. Rmericlatz jar4 Carrier, J. (1990). Special education and the explanation of pupil performance. Disability, Ha~ldicapalzd Society, 5, 211-227'. Christensen, CA,, Gerber; M.M., & Everhart, R.B. (1986). Toward a sociological perspective on learning disabilities. Edzrcakio:orznl T!zcroiy, 36,317-331. Cotes, G.S. (1978). The Iearning-disabilities test battery: Empirical and wcial issues, I-Igrvad Educational Reuifu;i 48,31 S340. Connor, El? (1983). Improving school instruction far learning disabled children: The TeachersT~alfegeInstitute. Excepfio~alEducation Qzmrferly,4, (1),23-44. Covington, M.W. (1985). Strategic thinking and the fear of failure. In J, Segal, 5. Chipman, (4r R. GIaser (Eds.), Tfzizzkizz~and legmizzg skills: Relafi~ginsfntcfimto basic researc!~(pp. 389-4161, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Critcrhley' M. (1970). The dyslexic child. London: Heinemann. Dudley-Marling, C., & Dippc~,D. (1W5). What learning disability does: Sustaining the ideology of schooling, foz-lrrzal of Learrzirzg Disabilities, 28,40&414. Dweck, C.S. (19%). Motivational prcjcesses afkcting learning. Anzeric~nPsycjtol~zgisf, 41,1Q@-1048. FIetcher, J.M. (1992). The t~atidityof distinguishing children with and without learning disabilities according to discrepancies with IQ: Intrr>ductianto special series. Journal of Learning Disnbilifies, 25, 546548. Fletchel; f,M., Shaywitz, $.E., Sl~ankweiler,DJ?, Katz, L., Liberman, I.U., Stuebing, M.K.,Francis, B.J., Fowler, A.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (1984). Copitive profiles of reading disability: Cornparisam af dixrepancy and low achieving definitions. journal of Educa f ionaE PsyclralagyI 86,C;-23. Frostig, M. (1972). Visual perception, integrative functions and academic learn1, 1-15, ing. fourrzal c?fLearrzitzgDisabilitiestl;, Geher, M.M., and %mmel, M.T. (1982). Teachers as imperfect test. Tn M.L. Smith, How edzkr-.nforsdiycide wlm is leanling disabled, Springfield, ZL: Charles C , Thomas. Gipps, C., & Murphy, I"". (1994). A fair test? Assessnzent, ncllievenzelzf and equity. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Hallahan, &r Kauffman, J.M. (1982). Exceytiounl ~Jzr'ldren.Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.

Hammill, D.D., Leigh, J.E,, McNutt C., & Larsen, S.C. (1981). A new definition of Disability Quarterly, 4, 336-342. learning disabilities. Learrzi~~g Hargreaves, D., Hester, S., & Mellor, F. (1975). Deviance in classrooms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hocutt, A.M., Cox, J.L., (4r Pelosi, J. (19M). An exploration of issues regarding the identification and placement of LE), MIX#and ED students. In R p ~ f i ~ ~ - Q l " i ~ n t e d study c$special edztcation's service delir~e~y sysstetn, Phnsc 1: PP1.elimir-za~ystlddy. (RTX Report No. PT1/27T)li-Of;/OISE). Durham, NC: Research Triangle Institute, Center for Educational Studies. Kavale, K.A., Fuchs, D., &X Scruggs, XE, (49134). Setting the recclrd straight on w achievement: Xmylications for policy making. learning disability and X Lmrnir-zg Disnbilities Rescar& and Practice; 9,70477. Kttgart, N.C. (2960). The slow learner in the classroom. Colurnbus, OH: Merrill. Kirk, S.A. (1962).Educating excqfionnl cllildrerz, Bojston: Houghton MiEfiin. Kirk, S.A., & Kirk, W.D. (1971). Psychulingzrislic tmrrzi~~g dis~bilities:Diagi~toskand retnediatiorz. Urbana, 1L: Universiv of Illinois Press-. McDermott, R,P! (191)3). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability, In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Ecis,), U n d e r s t a ~ d i practice: ~q Persyectives an nctizjity and c a ~ text (pp. 269-3015), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mehan, H, (1993). Bcwneath the skin and beween the ears: A case study in the politics of representatim. In S. Char ktin & J. Lave (Eds.), U~rderstandingpmcfice: Perspectives OM actiz~l'tyand context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Mehan, H., Hert-tnreck, A., 83- Meihts, J.L. (1986). Flklndicapp* the Fsn;rzdicapped: Dec i s i o ~mnkittg itz stude~ts2dzrmtio:orznlwrcrers, Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press. Morsink, C.V., Thamasf ;,.C., & Smith-Davis, 5, (1987). Noncategorical special education programs: Processes and outcomes. In M. Wang, M. Reynofds, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of specin/ cdzrcnfiorj re sear cl^ and pmct im.Learner cl~arncteristics a ~ adaptive d ducation (Vol. I , pp. 289-309). New York: 13er~2mon. Nozick, R. (1974).Anarcjty, sstafeand zttopia. New York: Basic Books. Reynolds, M.C. (2984). Classification of students with handicaps. In E,W Gardon (Ed .), Review cf research in edr~catiun(VC)!.2, pp. 6%92). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Rourke, B.P. (1989). Coles's L e a m i q Mysfz'quo: T h e good, the bad and the irrelevant. lozarr-zalof Lenfarzl'p~gDisnbilities, 22, 272-277. Russell, R.R., & Gin&urg, H.P. (1Cd84).Copitive analysis of children" sathematical difficulties. Cqtzr'ti~l-z alzd Insfrtictiorz, 1, 217-2412. Scruggs, T.E., CZr Mastropieri, M.A. (1992). Effective mainstreaming strategies far mildly handicapped students. Elententn~yScliaol Jour~znl,92,389-409. S e l i p a n , M.E. (1975). Hclylessnl.ss: OHdepression and death. San Francitico: Freeman. Shepard, L.A., Smith, M.L., & Vijir, C.P. (1983). characteristics of pupils identified as learning disabled. American Edzicational Research Irlturnnl, 20f 309-31 1. Skrtic, T.M. (1991). Behind spt>ciafedzrwfiotz. Denver, CO: Love. Stanovich, K.E. (19881, Explaining the differences between dyslaic and the garBen-variety poor reader: The phonslogical-core variable-difference model. journal I?( barnijzg Disabifiti~,21,590404.

Stanovich, K.E. (1994). Discrepancy definitic~nsof reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research QunrfwIy,26'7-29, Stanovich, K.E. (l"396). Matthew effects in reading: %me consequences of individual differences in the acquisitian of literacy. Reading ReseareIz Qzfnrterly,22, 360-3;70. Strauss, A., and Lehtinen, L. (19.1.3.Psych~~p~tliott~gy alzd edzlafiotz of the brain injurd citiM. New York: Grune & Stratton. Szuszkiewicz, T., &r Symons, D. (1993).Comment on Kosenberg et al. (1993).lourlznl I?( bamirtg Dl'sabr'Eifi;es,26,570-571. Tatturn, D. (1982).Disl-rlplive pupils itz schools alzd u ~ i t sChichestert . UK: John Wiley, Tucker, If.,Stevens, L.J., $r Vsseldyke, !.E. (2983).Learning disabilities: The experts speak out. Juurnal of learning Disl;nbilifies,I6,6-14. Ulman, J.U., & Rosenberg, M,$, (1986).k i m c e and superstition in special education. Excepll'onal childrclz, 52,459-460. U.S. Office of Education (1977). Education of handicapped children: Implementation of Part B of Educatic>nof the Handicapped Act. Federal Register, 42. VVatsan, P. (19";"2).Can racial discrimination affect IQ? In K. Richardscjn & D, , and E'~zielll"gence. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Spears (Eds.), R ~ c eculttire Wepman, J. (1958).Rudifuy Discritainnf-iorjTest. Chicago: Language Research Associates. White, R.W. (1959).Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psycitologiml Review, 66,297-333. Yswldyke, J., Algozzine, B., & Eggs, S. (1983).A IcjgicaX and empirical analysis of current practice in classifying students as handicapped, Exceptionat Cfzildretf, 50,160-166. Uswldyke, J.E., Algcjzzine, B., Richey, L,, & Graden, J. (1982). Declaring students" eligibility for learning disability services: Why bother with the data? Learrzi~g Disability Qzmrterly,5,37-44. Usseldyke f., Afgozzine, B,, Shinn, M.R., CZr McGue, M, (1979).Similtaritiesand differences kreween Icjw achievers and students classified as learning disabled. journal of Special Ed~cation,3 6, 1973-1983, Yswldyke, J., Afgc~zzine,B., and Thurl~jw-~ M. (1983).On interpreting Tnstitute research: A response tcr McKimey. Excepfiorzral Edzacalio:orzQliarterly, 4,1945-1947, Yswldyke, J.E., Thurtc~w~ M.L., Graden, J.L., Wessc>n,C., AXgozzine, B., & Deno, S.L. (1983).Generalizations from five years of research on assessment and decision-makhg. ExcepfionnlEducatio~Qzlarterly, 4 (l),75-93,

Can We Get There from Here? Learning Disabilities and Future Education Policy Louise Spear-Swerling

Contemporary educatimal policies for identiFying learning disabilities (LD) have been widely crilticized. :l w u l d Like to begin this chapter with a stmy that illustrates some of the conundrums in these poliries. As part of a program for trainhg preservice teachers, I have been supervising students in a fiddwork setting for the past k w semesters. The students tutor children in an after-school program at an urban public elementary school, which I will call Center School, in a large city in Cmnecticut. The school serves a population that is close to 100 percent rZfrican American and of unifnrdy low socioc.conomicstatus. I had been told that none of the children in the after-school program were receiving remedial or special-education services, so I was dismayed to discover that several of them werc functioning at extremly low readh g levels. Four youngsters, all third-graders, had s c o r ~ sbelow the twelfth perilentile for both Worcl Atrtack and Word Identification from the Woodcock-Jobs011 Tests of Achieverne~~t-Revised (M100dcock & Jobson, 1989). Two of the four children could read no higher than primerlevel text; the other two could not read accurately in context even at a preprimer level. The after-sehool program-one 45-minute session per week for eight weeks-was completely inadequate for providing the intensity of instruction r e p i ~ by d these youngsters. Test results in hand, I went to talk to the principal of the school. Was there any possibility oi getting the children s o m extra help durtng the schoolday, perhaps via compensatory education programs such as those fuxzded by Title X? ""Oh, the whole school qualifies for that," the principal said bluntly. "We have to s p a d that money around to all the children."

Cart We Cct Thercfiom &re? Fut ~4reEducnf ion Pt~ll'cy

251

Wnat abouf;special education? Indeed, the p r i n c i e informed me, all four children had been evaluated for learning-disabiiities services, but they bad failed to qualifJibecause they did not meet the IQ-achievement discrepancy criterion, which is central to most educational definitims of learning &sabilities not only in Connecticut but in many other states. Although clearly the childl-en were not mentally retarded, and all were in desperate need of help in reading, their IQ scores were not high enou$ relatic~eto their achievement scores for them to meet LD identificatio~~ guidelines. Ircmicaily, a k w days later, I ~ c e i v e da phone call fmm a parent whose child had just begm receiving learning-disabilities semiees in an affiuetnt subusban public school: district. During our conversation, I discovered that this sixth-grader, whom 1% call Danny, was readirng in context at about the fifth-grade level and had s c o ~ dat approximately the twentyiifth percentile in word recognition. Hawever, although these reading probtems were mffd compared to those cJf the four Cmter School youngsters, Danny had not: had diMicu,lty meeting the discrepancy ~quirememt of LD guidelines because he had scored well above average on m TQ test. From m educational standpoint, it is difficult to see the logic kn a system in which children with very serious reading difficdties cmnot qualify for help, whereas t h e with milder difficulties can qualify. Of course, the LD category is not tl-te only one under which childrm can ~ c e i v exe tra educational services in reading. E-lavtrever, LD identification gtridelines play a particularly important role in educators' attempts to help poor ~ a d e r sFor . one &ing, many poor readers do receive services under the f.,D designation, \zrhich is the si.ngle largest categoq of special ecfucation nationwide (nrgesen, 1.391).In s m e schools, if poor readers do not qualify as learning disabled and if they do not fall into some other special-education category (such as "emotionally handicapped"), their remedial needs will go largely unmet, as in the case of the four Center School children, And finaif?l,LD identification guidelirnes are influential in shaping how educators and others think about-md go about sohing-the problem of readjng difficulties. Illis chapter focuses m the problems with cwrent LD identification polices and, more optimistically, on possible ilnprovements in edwcational policies for identiehg and servhg children with reading difficulties. I begin the chapter by discussing current definitions of learning disabilities and gzsidelines for identifying LD in public schools. In the second sectim of the chapter, 1 mview research done by many educational and scientific investigators that reveals some of the central problems with, these polides. Finally, in the third section, I present severd difierent kinds of proposals for redefining and identifying learnjng disabilities that have been made by =searchers. I then explore how one

proposat, that involwing the concept of failure to responci to treatment, migj7t form a basis for future educationd policy Belore I begin, E must clarifq. three basic points about the orientation of this chapter, First, I focus on educational policies in the LInited States. Idearningdisabilities as a category is widely recoglnized by e d u c a t o ~ and researchers from many countries, and sorne of the problems with U.S. policies m learning disabilities also may exist elsewhere. However, the educational research that I cite has been conducted primarily in the United States, Furthermore, there are 'features of the American educational system in general, such as the lack of equity in funding across school &striets, that make it d i f f e ~ nfrom t thc systems of m n y other developed countries (Berlher & Biddle, 1995). Secmd, :I highlight ofie particuiar domain, that of reading. Although children can be identified as learning disabled in a nunber of diffe~rzt domains, a full discussion of all of these domains is well beyond the scope of the &apt=. I errtphasize rc.adi11g disability (RD) because it is the most intensively researched area of 1earnin.gdisabilities and because it is the domain in which children are m s t commody identified as being h need of educational services. However, the policy issues for other domains of learnirrg disabilities, such as mathematics or written expression, are likely analogous to those in reading. A final and especially important point ~ g a r d the s distinctim between learning disalsilities as a ficld of education m d learning &sabiI.itiesas a fie:ld of scientific investigation. This chapter focuses on the formr field, which dates from the early 1960s, well before the advent of most scientific research on Ieaming disabi%ities,A number ol investigators (e.g., Keogh, 1993; Moats & Lyon, 1933; Rrgesen, 1991.) have suggested that many of the current problems of learning disabilities as an educatimal field, stem Trom the fact that Ihe field "Cook off" fos social and political reasons (e.g., pressure from parent and professional advocacy groups) before it had a solid scientific fomdation. hterestingly, =cent scientific research does support sorne basic ideas long associated with reading disability. It is clear that some children do need much more intensive instmction in order to learn to read than do Wagner, 8r others (e.g., Felton, 1993; Torgesen. t3z: Hecht, 1996; Torgese~~, Rashotte, 1994). Furthermore, reading difficulties can occur even when childrrn come from an affluent family background, receive a good instructional program in reading, and are highly intelligent; and at least in s o m cases, these difficulties appear to be associated with biological (e.g., genetic) differences. Nonetheless, current educaticmal policy is not cmgruent with scientific rcsearclh on reading dishility in mny crucial ways that will be elaborated later in the chapter. Scientifically,the shtdy of even a single musual case is jus~fiedand may 1991; see also Torgesen, Chapulthately y i d practical balefits (Torgese~~,

Cart We Cct Thercfiom Here? Fut ~4reEducnf ion Pt~ll'cy

253

tr.r 5, &is volume). From a scientific standpoint, it may be entirely =asonable to inclrxde Danny as a subject of study and to exclude the Cent-er School children. However#in order to be good educational policy the current syskm of classiQing childrm with LD rnust meet other rczyuiremmts. Specificaf,tythe dassificaf-ion should be valid for most: school-labeled &ldren with LD, and these children's educational needs should be distinctive enw@to wiirrarnt singling them out for scrparate educatimal classificathn m d treame~~t. Far instmce, the case of the Center School children m d fii it may be legitimate to classify D y as learning disabled and not ter khool childrm if ter "potential" in reacting or a qualjtatively different Vpe clf poor r e a h g , one that requkes a ~ e c i akind l of remediation not beneficial to the Center School children. hdeed, these are h-a$.itional assumptions asscx:iated with readh~gdisabiliv, but they are among the ones not supported by scientific evidence,

Current Educational Policies on Learning Disabilities Federal and State Regdlatz'orzs Federal and state regulations are ext.remely influential in edLtcaEionaX identification of RR, and in determinhg funding to scbuols for pmvision of tipecial-education services. Zn these grtfdefines, liL> is included under the umtnrella category of learning disabilities. The federal regulations (EL, 101-476, or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and its earlia counterpart, P.L. 94-142, the Education far All :Hanliicapped Children Art of 7,975)conta,in the following definition of learning disabilities: "Specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spokm or written, which may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, thlnk, speak, read, tzrrite, or d o mathematical calculatir3ns. T11e term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or ecmomic disadvantage. (Fedem! Register, December 29,197'7, g. 65083)

Fed.eral guidelines also =quire that children identified with learning disabilities have "a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectuai ability" (p. 65083) in at least one of seven areas: basic rcading, reading comprehension, written expression, oral expression, listening comprehension, mathematics reasoning, or mathemtics calculation. Thus children with BU may be identified based on deficits in basic

rt?adFng (i.e., word cognition), in ~ a c i i n gcomprehension, c ~ rin both areas, Federal guidelines do not specify a particular method for measuring "intellectual ability'"; nor do they specify exactly what constitutes a "severe di,screpancy.'"n fact, they give educators considerable latitude in deciding whether to qualify a particular child for services. However, in educational practice, an individualZy administered X Q test typicdy is used to measure intellectual ability Furthermortl, slate guidelines have often souglnt to quantify the amount of discrepancy needed for an LD diagnosis. This amount, as wefl as the actual procedure for determining the discrepancy (e.g., standard-score eompmisoa vs. the use of expectancy iormulas), can vary considerably from state to state (Frankederger & Harper, 1987; Moats & Lyon, 1993). The discrepancy criterion is only onc of three min requirements contained in th federal regulations and fomd in many state guidelhes on LD as well. A seccmd ~ q u i m c ~invokes nt the statement in the federal definitio~nthat children wi& learniing disabilities have "a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes." In educational practice, pmcessing disordms co only are idenl;ified through the use of tests of FrisuaJ,processhg, auditory processing, memory; or language. Deficits h these areas usually are assumed to be evidence of an ixrtrinsic disorder h g (and not, for example, widence of faulty ins.truction c ~ rhck of experience). The third requirement involves the last sentence of the federal definition, often called the exclusion clause, which states that learning disabilities are not primarily due t~ other handicapping conditions, such as sensory impairmnt. or melrtal retudation, or to cwltural or enviental factors. Of these three requirements, the dir;crepmcy criterion is the most emphasized in educationd practice (Frankenberger ct;r Harper, f 987; Stanovich, 199f,), perhaps because it is the easiest to qraantify; Fundmental to U-rese definitjms of f.;n and RE) are several assumptions. Children with fCf)are assumed to have an intrinsic problem in kaming, one that is based on a biological deficit. The nation of "unexpected"" reading failure also has been historirafiy fundmental to the concept of rtading disabiiity (Stanovich, 1994). I'hat is, reading difficdties are seen as explainable in children wit.h Iimited inteUect-ual abilities, sellsory handicaps, obvital deprivation, and the like whereas rcading disabiI* hvolves unexpected or unexplained reading failure,And finally, educaticmal defmitions of RE) assulne Ihat it involves a unique lcind of p o r reading that is diffemt from generic reading failure.

77ze N a t i o ~ afaint l Committee ors Leumiltg Disabilities Definitio~ I'he National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD)consists of reprtlsentativcs from a variety of influetntiat learning-disabaities orga-

Cart We Cct Thercfiom Here? Fut ~4reEducnf ion Pt~ll'cy

255

nizatiom and professional groups. Their deAnition of learning disabilities has been widely cited: Lmrnir-zgdisabilities is a general term that refers to a heterogeneous grc~upof disclrders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities. These disc>rdersare intrinsic to the individual, presumed to be due tcr centrat nevvous system dysfunction, and may occur across the life span. 13roblerns in self-regulatory behaviors, social perceptiim, and sacial interaction may exist with learning disabilities but do not by thernsel\res comtitute a learning disabiliq. Although learning disabilities may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (for example, sensory impairment, mental retardation, serious emotional distuhance) or with extrinsic influences (such as cultural differencesf insufficient or inappropriate instruction), they are not the result C I ~those conditions or influences. (National Joint Committee cln Learning Disabilities, 11988, p. 1)

The NJCLD definition makes explicit what is implicit in federal and most state regulations-that RD (and other types of learning disabilities) involve intrinsic disorders in learning that are assumed to be due to centrat nervotxs system dysfunction.

Some Probf ems with Current Identification Potieies

Many investigators have compared poor rcladers who have EQ-achievernent discrepancies to ""grden variety" poor readers (Gough Sr rl'u 1986) who lack discrepancies. Garden-variety poor readers are crihildren whose tQsl atthough approximately commensurate with their reading achievement, are not lrnw enough for them to be classified as matally Wtarded-the case with the four childre11 from Center School. A. central question in these investigations has been whether the comparisons would reveal sipificant crrpitive diaferences between the two gmups of poor readers in support of the idea that the discrepancy criterio~zidentifies a qualitatively different kind of poor reading, However, many mre similarities than differences have been revealed. Tl~esesimilarities are mast pronounced for the basic cog~~itive processes involved i,n reading, particularly word recognition, Both groups of poor readers appear to share a core set of deficits fn phonological processing (Fletcher et al., 1994; Siegel, 1988,1989; Stmovich & Siegel, 15394),There is now cmsiderable scientific consensus that most cases oi reading dsLabiIl9 do not involve a unique syndmme of poor reading, but rather are best cmceptuatized as being on a continuum wl& garden-variety poor reading.

Curmntly, there is little evidence to support tbr idea that childrtzn with discrepancies necessarily have a better prognos.is in rcadir?g than do children who lack discrepancies (Stanovich, 1991). Fur.thermre, both groups appear to benefit from similar types of remedial pmgrams (Felton, 1993; Siegel, 1988, 1989, (.:hapter 7, this volume; Torgesen, 1991). Although youngsters like the Center School children are excluded, based on the discrepancy crilterion, from remedial services (at least under the LD category), they might weil benejt from these services as much as their peers who have discrepancies, Yet another problem with the discrepancy criterion involves the assumption that the causal relationshjp betweetn IQ (or “"ability") and reading aehievment runs in only one direction-from abilit-y to achievement. In fact, it is clear that the causal rt~lationshipruns in both directions (Siegel, 1988, 19889; Stanovich, 1991). 'That is, reading itself helps to develop many of the abiliees that are measurcd on Q tests, such as vocabulary. Thus over t h e , ''Matthew effectsrf(Stanovich, 2986; Walberg & Tsai, 1983) associated with poor reading, such as a lack of indepetndent reading, may gradually erode some poor readers' performance on, IQ tests,

77ze Use of P r ~ c e s s i ~Tests g Certain measures of cognitive pmcessing are very usefd in identifyifig reading difficultjes-whelher or not those dlifficdties invdve IQachievement discrepancies-and in predicting whetlner yomg chi.Idrc3n are at risk of h u e reading failure. I'hree especially impmtant rneasms hvolve howledge of Letter names and sounds; phonological awareness, or sensithity to sounds in spoken words; and rapid-naming tasks, in which chitci~nart? requied to name a variety of stimuli such as letkrs m d digits as quickly as possible (Adams, 1990; Nation 8s Hulme, 1997; Torgesen, Waper, Rahotte, Burgess, & Hecht, 1997; Wolf, 1991). A p*cipal ~ a d i n g deficit in children with RPZ fnvolves phonological reading, that is, the ability to &code unfanniljar words (Rack, Snokvling, 8s Qlson, 1992). U~~fortmately~ however, there are a number of problems with the w v processing measures tend to be used h education. A very basic problem is the lack of technical adequacy of some processing tests (Moats & Lyon, 19%). Second, sometimes the right pmcesses are not measured. For instance, although the scientific consenstts is that linguistic, particularly phonologiral, deficits arc fundamntal to most cases of reading disabilw and of poor ~ a d i n ggenerally these phonological processes metilTIes are not emphasized heducatimal assessment. Pefiaps the most serious problem with the use of processing tests in education invoZves how the tests are interpreted. Cogni-tivepsychobgists

Cart We Cct Thercfiom Here? Fut ~4reEducnf ion Pt~ll'cy

257

interested in reading-related cognitive abilities such as phonological awareness have e~nphasizedthat these abilities are shaped by experie12tial. as well as innate influences (e.g., Mann, 1994; Olson, Rack, Canners, DeFries, c?l Fulker, 1991). The fact that an ir~dividualchild has a low score on a prclcest;ing test, by itself, perm,its nt:, f im conclusions regarding the ultimate cause of the low score, In most cases, processing weaknesses ate and experiential factors. litkely ~ f l e cat cmplex interplay of both However, in school identification ol learning disabilities, thcse weaknesses often are assumed to be entirely the result of an intrinsic disorder in learning.

Exclusionav Criteria Like readhg disability; most of the cmditio~~s specified in the exclusio~~ claus+ernotional disturbance, cultural or economic disadvantage, and so on-are themselves difficult to define. 111 t;heory, when educators are c d r o n t e d with poor readers who have clne of these other conditionssuch as the Center School chilbn-they must determine the child's "pzimary'"isabflity. Exactty how they are supporied to accomplish this goal, however, is not clear. For instance, all of the Center School children are Africm American and poor. Rut Keogh, Gallimore, and Weisner (1997) point out that race and ethnicity should. not be confourlcjied with culture. Wthin a shgle racial or ethnic group, cultural attitudes that am important in educational achievement, such as the extent to Gzihich Literacy is encouraged at home, vary widcly. (See also Snokv, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, & Mempt.rill, 1991.) This variability is evident in the Center School children, some of whom appea"tf) come fmm families that promote literary and some of whom do not. C)f: course, there is also variability among wfiite, middtcclass fmilies. It c ot be a s s u e d , for example, that Umny" hame Iiteracy experiences have been ideal or that he has no serious famfty problems (Weissbaurd, 1996). Race, ethnicity, and sscioecanamic status cannot be used as sinnple proxies for cultural attitudes toward literacy and education or to make assumptians about Mxhether a child" home envimnrncnt is optimal for Icarning. Furthermore, even if educators had the assessment tools to determhe cultural attitudes t w a r d learning or the extcnt of literacy in a child's home, these wodd probably not be particularly helpful in dcddi,ng the cause of m individual. child"s reading difficulties. Failure in school invotves a complex ir^ltt.ractionbetween characteristics that the child brings to the classroom, such as h a t e abilities and motivation, m d extrhsic hfluences, such as the xlature of classroom instruction (e.g., Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1996; Zigmond, 1993). h scientific resealrch, it is entirely le-

tjitknate to try to tease apart these different causal influences. But in the messy reality of schools, determining ultixnate causation for indjvidual cases of poor reading usually is impossible. The AssumpZrl'an of aur ;CMtrirrsic Biological Disorder

Scientific fnvestigators interested in the biological correlates of ~ a d i n t ; disability have identified certain biologic& dilferences in some hcfividuals with :RD. For example, autopsy and magnetic resonance imaging (MM) studies have shown an unusual symmetry in the planum temporate, a brain structure beljeved to he involved in language processing;, in some subjects with RD (Galaburda, Sherman, Rosen, Absitiz, & Geschind, 1985; :Hynd & Semwd-Clikernan, 4989). (Xher investigators (e.g., Flowers, 1993; Flowers, m o d , 8r Naylor, 1991) have demonstrated functional brain differences, such as different patterns of regional cerebral blood flow during the performance of certain tinguistic a d rt?a$.ing tasks, in some individuals with RD. Ge~neticresearch has shown that at least m e cognitive ability that is particularly important in reladjng disability and in reaeting acquisition generdy, phonological reading, appears to be highly heritable (Olson et al., 1991). However, the extent to which these biological. differences constlitute actual abncrrmalitie+as opposed to a conthuum of individual diffctrences in biologr, some of wh,ieh might rnake children more vurrerable to reading failure-is uncertah. Studies of schooi-identified children with RU rarely find evidence of clear-cut neurological abnormalities in these youngsters (Delnckla, i,eMa~;8r Chapmm, 1985).Although poor readers whose difficulties are caused by a discrete biological disorcler certainly may exist, such a disorder does not appear to chararterize tbr vast majority of children who are labelcd as learning- or reading-disabled undcr current educational policies, tn addition, none of the biological digerences that have been identified to date appear to pmclude teamh~ghow to read, although they may sometimes make learning to read more diMicult. :Many scientific investigators have suggested that the LU category has been overgeneralized h educationri practice. As Zigmond (1993) pohts out, educators usually arc less concerned with who is "rt3al1yt' learning disabled than with finding a way to get educational help for youngstcl.rs who need it. Because the LT) category is a relal.ively paldable one cornp a d to other special-education categories, it lmds itself to overgeneratization. Edueationdy, if categorizi~ngchildsen as learning disabled is frequently d m e for pramatic reasons, simply as a way to obtain extra help, does the category influence how chitcJlren are pertleived by teachers? fn

Cart We Cct Thercfiom Here? Fut ~4reEducnf ion Pt~ll'cy

259

some cases, it does, For example, Allington, McGill-Franzen, anci their colfeagues (Allington & Li, 1,990; McGiXl-Franzen & h e s , 1,990) found that special-education teachers had much lower expectations for the poor ~ a d e r in s their classes than did remedial-reading teachers, even though were intellectually normal and many the youngsters in special-educatio~~ were not dramatically deficient in reading. S i d a r l y Clark (1997) found that regdar-classroom teachers wew more likely to expect f u u e failure .from (hypothetica:t) boys described as having learning disabilities than from similar boys not llabeled as learning disabled. Anot_her concern involves how children li-rbeled as learning dis;rbled perceive .Crhemselves.Obviously, childre11 who experience serious readirrg problems alrcady are at risk of a negative seltf-concept, However, in emphasizing that chifdren with RU have an intrinsic learniq problem that is "'presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunclion,""Ehe learning-disablcd label m y sometimes cause poor readcrs to view themsefves even more negatively than they would otherwix. A tine of work in psychology (e.g., Clhiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1,994;Dweck & I:.,eggett,1988) indicates that people" beliefs about their own abilities withln a domain can exert a causal influace on their actual performance in that domah, especiatly \zrhen they are faced with difficult tasks. For exmple, Chiu and cofieagues (1994) review evidence showing that incremental theorists of infettigence ( i n d i v i d d s who beiieve that intetligence is malleable) were more likely to choose challenghg tasks trhat entailed a risk of &lure than were entity theorists (those who believe that intelligence is fied). Even when the tvvo types cJf theorists were initialry matched in terns of ability, entity theorists were more likely to give up in the face of &lure, whereas incrclmental theorists were more likely to persist, Moreover, analogous results were obtained for the domain of social skills and for the domain of intellectual achievement. (%e also Cole, Maxwell, 8r Martin, 197.) Of course, some individuals classified as having RU, as well as their teachers, are incremental theorists about reading abilities; they believe that these abilities are malleablie rather than fixed. But the concept of ~ading disability as an intrinsic disorder in learnilng does lit& to foster this kind of theorizing*

FIistoncally, the idea of '"unexpected" readjng failure conveyed the fact that poor ~ a d i n could g exist in children who appeared to have intact intellectual and sensory f-abilities as well as adequate opportunities to learn. FIowever, the idea of '"unexpected" reading failure developed at a time when less was known about the cogniZive processes involved in reading,

about human cognitive abilities generally and about the complex interaction of both imate and experiential variables that cmtribute to reading achievement. For instance, it is now known that reading acquisition draws on a wide variety of cognitive abilities, not all of which ccndate highly with IQ; thus one can have weak phonological abilities and poar decoding skills but still obtain a high score on an IQ test, Even for individual children, rt?a$.ing failure is often not ""unexpected" if one monitors the specilk cognitive processes that arc crucial to early reading aChievement. Well before first grade, for instance, futurcl p m readers frequently evidence problems in learning letters and in phonological awmness. Thus the idea of "mexpectectness"" appears to have outlived its usczfu1ness as a way of thinking &out readjng problems. 'Tb sum up, currat scic.ntific research on ~ a d i n disability g has provided h p o r t m t hsights about the nahnre of poor readhg, but it does not support current educational policies for identifiiing a reading disahiliq. hdeed, as yet it pmwi$es no legitimate basis for sirtgling out m y subgroup of poor readers-'~vhether they are defined usil-i,gcurrcnt .policies or some other criteria-for separate educational classificatim m d treatment. h d fh~allyin failing to c m v y the complex intmactionsinvoked in the gmesls of poor readh~g,the construct d readb~gdisability does not provide educators with a useful way of conceptualizing most reading difficuI.ties,

Future Palicy Directions An old joke about fhding me" way to an unfamiliar place laments that one ~ also might hold about: the "you can't get there from here," an o p i n i o ~ possibi.lity of improvements in future educational policy. However, 1 think it is possible to reaeh the destinaticm of an educational policy that serves all poar readers well or at least makes cmsiderable progress toward that goal-but not if futurc policy is based on the traditional construct of ~ a d j n disabiliq. g Weissbourd (1996)points out: Those who run programs and work with children need a more complex made1 for thinking about how and why individual children are vulnerable. Such a model wtvould not rely on general conditions, such as poverty, or on multiplet static risk factors. Instead, it would enable a professicmal tcr tell a story about a child that captures the interactions between the child and the environment and that is faithful to the dynamic qualities and complexities of the child's life. (pp.32-33)

A1thougfn Weissbourd" emphasis is on race and poverty, his viewpoint is epally applicable to the prtiblem of poor readirtg. We mecl a compl"x

Cart We Cct Thercfiom &re? Fut ~4reEducnf ion Pt~ll'cy

261

model for t h i n h g about wading failure that takes accrrmt of individual differetnces i,n both cognitive abilities and children's experiences, that examines the interactions among these variables, and that considers how these variables may change developmental. The traditinnai concept of reading disability docs not provi,de such a con?plex m d e l for thinking about reading diificullties, Moreover, although it certainly is legitimate for scientists to try to identify m d study unusual disorders of readk~gor specific cogtnitive patterns of poor reading, at p~setntthere is no scientifjc basis for framhg edzlcnficlanl policy around such a disorder or pattern, fndeed, one irony of research on reading disabiliy is that it has been far more s~ccessfrttin elucidating the typemf difficufties experienced by poor readers in general than it has been in idmtiftihg a distinctive reading disorder. In this section, I begin by reviewing three types of proposals for changes in identification policies for W13: refbrming the discrepancy criterion, using a low-achievement criterion fn place of the discrepancy criterion, and identifying children based on either low achjevement or the prcsence of a discrepancy, 1 also elaborate some reasons E believe that each of these proposals is not the right choice for framing fuhre educational policy on reading difficult-ies.Finalfy, I review a fourth End of proposal-incorporat-ing the concept of persistence of difficulties or resistance to treatment-ne I argue m y hold m r e promise for designiw hture educational policy Table 11.1contrast.; all four types of prczposals regarding the extent to which they ~ t a the h core crrmponmts and assumptions associated with the traditional construct of RD. As the table shows, these proposals have iocused largely m problems with the discrepancy criterion, and at least two have abandrrned the asslrrnption that RI1) cmstitutes a unic;tue kind of poor readbg. However, none of the proposals has f-abandoned the assumption that fiU involves an htrinsic learning disurder or the idea oi "unexpected" reading failurt?.

Proposal I : Refaming the Discrepancy C~terisrz M q policy recommendations have revolved a s o m d attempts to modify the discrttpancy criterion. These possible modifications were examined at length by Stanovi,ch (1991). Perhaps the most logical mdjfication (in terms of the cognitive processes involved in reading), and one that has a long hi"tory in the rt;adint; field, is to substikte a listening camprehension-reading comprehension discrepancy for the IQ-achievement discrepancy. The bask idea behind this change is that listening comprehension is a better indkator of "potentialf% read% than is IQ, Further-

TABLE 44.1 Core Companents and Assumptions of BD Construct Retained by Proposals for Redefining RD

Proposal

Uniquc Kind of Discuepnr~cy .Poor Criteria Readr'ug

Compon~nl. Use of In trizsic Same Bisa bility EIxcfzi~is?~~ in "UnexpecGcld" Criterk Lear~il.18 Failure

REFC3RM

yes (but in att-ered form)

yes

yes

yes

yes

LA

no

no

yes

yes

yes

LA/ DISCREP

yes (but also a l l w s lowachievement criterion)

no

yes

yes

yes

?

?

yes

yes

Note: REFORM = reIc3rmations of the discrepancy crikerion (e.g., Stanovich, 1991); LA = low achievement (e.g., Siegel, 1988); LA/DXSCREP =z either low achievement or discrepancy criterion; RESPBNSE/PERSI;IST = response to treatment/persistence of deficits (e.g., Berninger & Abbot, 1994).

more, because the central deficit in readjng disiibilq appears to revolve around word decoding, listening comprehension provides a measurt? of haw well one ntig:hl. expect children with BD to comprehend in rclading were their decodjng problems remediated. tlawever, as Stanovich points out, the use of a listening comprehmsio~z-readingcomprehe12sion discrepancy entails certain practkal problems and, like an IQ-achicvment discrepancy, is subject to Matthew effects. More important from the standpoint of educational poficy, there is little justificatim for excluding children from educational services because they lack a discrepanc~however it is formulated. Furthemorc, poor r e a k r s with a listening comprcrhension-reading comprehension discrepancy do not appear to differ suhstantiallly in their co@tive profiles from poor readcrs of the same age who lack this kind of discrepancy (Fletcher et al., 1994). I111the worcfs of.Yogi &era,/'It's like d4j8 vu all over again'? 'The use of a listening comprehension-reading comprehension discrepancy (or any other kind of discrepancy)fails to solve the prohlems of tbe disc~pancycriterion as educational p o l i q

Cart We Cct Thercfiom Here? Fut ~4reEducnf ion Pt~ll'cy

The multitude of probfems surrounding the discrepancy criterion led to Siegelrs(1"38,19K9) proposal that reading disability be defined and identified solely on the basis of low achievement, particulariy in word recognition. Siege1 also suggests (see chapter 7, this volume) that masures of pseudoword readhg (e.g., the Word Attaclc suhtest of the WoodcockJohnson Tests of Educational Achievement, Woodcock 8s fohson, 1%9) be in.cluded in assessment of individuals with reading difficulties. Pseudowords provide a more sensitive indicator of dectding abilities than do real words, and decoding problems are central not o111y to reading disability but to poor reading in general, However, Siegel" proposal appears to retain the other aspects of the RD constmct, such as the use of s o m exclrasimary esiteria, the assumption of an intrinsic deficit in learning, and the concept Oi "unexpectedf'reading failure,

Proposal 3: U s i ~ the g Low-Achieveme-nt or the Dt'screpnncy C ~ t e r i o n Other proposals have suggested that poor readers be identified based either on Low achievement or on an IQ-achievement discrepancy. For example, Fletcher and Foorman (see also Fletcher et al., 19%) suggest that not only low achievers, but. atso children wiCh IQ-acfiievememt discrepancies who are not low achievers, may need educational assistance and should be eligible for identification as reading disabled. Presumably, the latter would he youngsters with higher-t-han-avcrage 0 s m d average or bosderline achievement in reading, but with relative weaknesses in specific phonologicai skills-for instance, youngsters like Dmv. 'l'hese inbrestigators also advocate only two exclusionary criteria: ge~zeralizeddevelopmental delay (i.e., mental retardatinn) and sensory hpairment. Like Siegel" proposal, however, this one does not abandm the notion of an intrinsic cleficit in learning or "mexpected""reading failzxre, .A different proposal incorporating both a low-achievement criterion and an IQ-achievement dixrepmcy criterion was presmted to the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (mvision for teamilng Disabilities, 1995). This proposal, developed, by representatives of several major ' unlear~tg-disabilitiesorganizations, relies explicitly on the notion of k expceterl" failure. SpeciSically, students in gsaclies three or below wodd be identified as learning-disabled based on ""unexpected poor performance'" inone of eight areas, including basic reading &ills and reading comprehension, An ability-achievement discrepancy criterion hvould continue to be used for students in grades four m d up. Exdusionar). cri-

teria also would be used and would remain similar to those in current federal reg~~lations.

ProbEe~nswith the First Three Types of Proposa Es as Edtlcafiovral Policy These proposafs do make it easier for many children to qualify for educational help. Proposals 2 and 3, in particular, would ease the dilernrna described in my openhg anecdote of children with very serious reading dif iculties not being eligihk for extra services because they lack an ability-acfnieventent djscrepancy 'The use of either a ow-aehievemrnt or a discwpancy criterion is an especially Ijberal proposal that would allow many youngsters like Damy, as well as those lice the Center shoo1 children, to be eligible for educational services. However, the price to be paid for these sewices is that children are considered to have a "reading disabilityf9thatis "i~~trinsic to the individual'' and "presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction." In other words, these proposals address certain problems in the construct of ~ a d i n gdisabiliv-most notabb the discrepancy criterion and the assumption,that RD constitutes a unique kind of poor reading-but not the other psoblems outlined in the second section of this chapter. For instance, at a place like Center School, very large nulnbers of children could qualify for services as ""reading disabled" udder these proposals, Do we really wmt to assume that they all have an intrhsic disorder in learnfng based on a biological defect? As the =search reviewed in the second section of this chnyter slnowed, for the vast rnajority of poor readers in educational settingsl this assumption is at best unproven and at worst actuaily damages chifdren" future educational prospects. I m not suggesting that the existence of individuddiffemces inreading ability, or in the underlying cognitive abilities that serve readjng, should be ipored. :Nor should we deny that these individual differences are likely shaped in part by biological differe~nccs(asopposed to defects). FIowever, it is me thing to convey to children that they have a significant weakness in ~ a d h that g needs to be worked on; it is quite another to convey that they have m intrinsic disabil2y in learning based on a presumed biologiral dysfunction. In the Labsence of evidence bearing on the question of an intrinsic disabffity, our dehult assumption shoufd be that children's learning atoilities are intact (XJikulski, 1,996). In my opinion, a better way to think aholxt readlng difficulties is in terms of multidimmsitrnai views of abilities (e.g., Gardnm, 3983; Sternberg, 1988,494). Many different tcinds of abilities are important in life, and most people have strengths and weaknesses across different types of abjlities. The goal of

Cart We Cct Thercfiom Here? Fut ~4reEducnf ion Pt~ll'cy

265

education is to help c h i l d ~ n whether , they are poor readers or not, to capitalize on their strengths while i m p v i n g in arcas of weakness, I also do not believe that average-achieving youngsters should be classified as ""rading dishled" "because they have IQs that are high relative to their achievement. However, I would certahly agree that it is essefztial to look at c o q o n m t abilities in readjng, such as decoding, and not just at overall rmeiing achievement. For example, in addition to the four estre17nely poor readers I described in my openhg story, there were several youngsters in the program at Center School who read near-grade-level text despite having Word Attack scores below the twentieth percmlile. In readhg connected text, they were clearly using co~ztextualcues to compensate for poor decoding. There certaixlly is reason to be worried about how tbese below-amrage decorders will fare in reading as they encounter increasingly difficdt texts in the later grades, and these children's dtcoding problems shoulld be addressed, through additional educational services if necessary However, I woUlLi not conceptudize average decoeters with above-average IQs as having reading problms or as needi,ng extra educational services in readhg.

Proposal 4: Persistence of Difliculfies ar Resistance to TreaG~ne~zL Another set of suggestions for conceptnxalizhg reading disability has involved the notions of resistance to treatment or persistence of prohlems over t i m (Berninger & Abbott, 1994; Shaywitz, Escobar, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Makuch, 1992; VelXutino, ScranXon, 8r Tanzman, 19991).These suggestions emphasize individual differences in how yujckly poor readers respond to educational help; some respond to fairly short-term imtervezztions, whereas others co~zthueto experience long-term problems despite treatmmt, Investigators who advocate this approach to redefining :RP) typically have maintaimd that c h i l d ~ nwho fail to learn whel given refjearch-validated trcatrnents (""trcatment non~sponders"')are more fikely to have intrinsic disabilities in learning than are children MIho respond to t ~ a m e n t . Thus as Table U.1 shows, this type of propoml, We the prcvious three, does not ctibmdon the ass ption of an intrhsic disorder based on a biological deficit. Also, '*munexpecte$." failure woulLi man some%ing slightly different: here than in the other three proposals-not failure to learn despite adequate intelligence and sensory abilities but failure to learn despite exposuro to treaments that typicalfy are e&cti\le with other; similar children. (The qucstion marks in the table indicate that if is not clear hvhether t ~ a t m e n nonresponders t wodd be viewed as hav.ing a uniwe type of poor reading or *%er exclusionary criteria woutd be used.)

Critics of this approach (e.g., Eletcher clIr barman, 19%) have highlighl.ed some irnportmt problems with it. These indude prilictical difficulties in the adequate measuremnt of response to treatment, a lack of research evidence rczgarciing the best way to design specific treatments, and problem with early interventim (if ehildren have to demo11stra.t.e failure over a period, of time in order to be identified as llieeding educational services). Nevert.Eteless, I believe that with some modifications, this way of viewh g reading difiiculties may hold some p r o m i ~"for designing educational policy, for at feast two reascms. First, it is consistent with =search showhg that children who seeln to have similar deficits do vary substm, example, dthougX-1c o p i t i w retially in their responses to t ~ a t m e n tFor search has s h o w that worcl-recopition and phonological skitls are primary cleficits for poor reders, it has also revealed marked individual differences in poor readcrshesponses to intervention in these areas (Torgesen &r Hecht, 3996; Torgesen et al., 1.994).And second, it appears to have a relevance to educational policy that, at least to this point, has eluded appmches that attempt to classify children according to different "types" of poor rczadhg. For example, if some children need greater intensity of hstructio~~ than do others, educational policy needs to take account of this fact by providhg a range of instructional options. However, we should not assume that children wlio are treatment nonresponders are Ihe "real" ccases of RD any more &an we should make this assumption based on the presence of an :IQ-aclnievement discrepancy or phonological-processing problems, ?'here are many rt?asms that individual youngsters might not respond to a particular treat~~ent-lessprior experience with literacy in the home, less motiva.ti.on fnr reading, some individual-difference variable that does not constitute an actual disability, or any n m b e r of other reasons*The fact t-hat some children fail to respond to a given treatment, by itself, is not evidence of a particdar etiology of poor reading. In other words, if this appmach to conceptualizhg reading di,ffi,cwlt.iesis to fonn a good basjs for educalional policy, we must liberate it from the assumptions that have been and continue to be yoked to the tradition& concept of reading disabifiq. made at the subet between Here I would like to reiterate the disthctio~~ science and eduratimal policy En scientific research, itis of course legitimate to explow quedons such as whether some trt?ament nonresponders have bi,ological anomalies-just as it is legitjmate to use the first three types of proposals in research, for exampk, to investigate various cognitive patterns of poor rc-tading. However, it is premaktre at best to assume that all tseament nonresponders have m hkhsic dkorder of learning m d to found educational policy m such an ass ptim. To do so would only repeat the past mistakes d learning efisabilitiesas a field of educaticm,

Cart We Cct Thercfiom &re? Fut ~4reEducnf ion Pt~ll'cy

267

Recently, the response-to-treatment approach to redefining RD has been highlighted by a debate between several learning-disabilities organizations and tke leadership of the Internationd Reading Associaticzn (IRA). The latter has been openly critical of definitions of LD, specific* the NJCLJDdefinition, and of the assunptions embedded in the traditionaI construct of reading disability (see, e.g., Pikulski, 1996). Pikulski suggests that persisknce of problems over time be explmcl as one way of defining learning disabilities and that "intense, appropriate instruction in the area of difficulty . . . shoul$ take place prior to concluding that special education placement is needed" (1996, p. 15). In a response to IRA critiejsxns ol LD policy, Mhskoff (19%) correctly points out that ""pereferral intervention strategies are mandated or mcouraged in many states and have been effective in hawing ~ a e i i n g teachers provide early intervention scrvices to students experiencing difficlrlty in rcading""(p. 11).However, prereferral strategies not only lack universality across school districts hut typically involve modiicatims made by the regular-classroom teacher afer consultation with other educators &erner, 1997). They rarely involve the kind of intensive instruction advocated by Pikulski (1996). C)bviously, all regular-classroom teaehers shottld use prrzseferrd intervention because this End of interventjon can be very effective inadd.ressing some children" problems. Nevertheless, the failure of prereferral strakgies to s o h a given chi1d"s problems does not mean that the child should. ixnmediately be consiged to special education, Rather, a range oi alternatives needs to be available, A second set of crptions might involve the more htens-ive instruction that Rkulski (1996) suggests.,E x q l e s of this second g r o q of htervcntions could include programs such as Reading Recovery (Clay, 1985) or Hiebert's ~struchtredChapter 1 program fHiebert, 7,994). If a yolmgster's difficulties continued to persist in the face of these more intensive hterventions, the child, might be considered fnr special education, In other words, one way to trmslate the responseto-treatme~~t approach into educational policy involves the use of several tiers of intervention. Tl~esedifferent tiers miglnt be distinguished-at least initially-primarily by increasing intensity individualization, and duration, with special education representing the most intensive and long-term option. In this scenario, the educational needs of both Danny and the Center School children might be met vvithout unfounded assumptions about the nature of their poor reading. .A point to eznphasize involves Pihlski's (1996) recommendation that before special-educatictn @cement is considered, children ~ c e i v intene sive hstruction in the area of dzfletllty. For m n y poor readers, the most significant m a of difficulty involves phonological skills, particularly the ability to decode unfamiliar words. It is essmtial that the initial tiers of

intervention target this area when needed. This is not to mandak any one particular readislg program or approach, for the evidence does not clearly favor one particular method of develophg decoding skills over ail others. Children might be t a u e t initially via m m analytic or more synthetic approaches to decodhg; their phonological abilities might be developed through writing activities as well as through oral-language activities; and they might learn to decode in the contertt of a basal read% program, a whole-language program, or a literature-based program. FIowever, research does ixrdicate that poor maders (and children generdly) benefit from expticit teaching of decoding skills that is well integrated with the khds of texts that children are reading (e.g., Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkhson, 1985; Chall, 1983). It surely makes no sense to refer cMdren for special educatim because of poor decoding if ncr one has actually tried to tea.ch them to decode. Similarly, cfiildrcm with readhg-comprehension problems should. have explicit instruction in, that area well before they art. cmsidered for special education, C)f course, f am not the fllrst perso11to s~~gf;("~t a systeln of mu,ltiple tkrs of intervention, and indeed, such a system already does exist in some schools. However, even where this system exists, it still is tied to an invalid policy for classifying poor readers as "learning djsabled" or "not learning disabled." We need a fomal educational p o k y for identifying and serving poor readers that cltoes not require pigecmholing them into invalid categories but that at t-he sarnc time rclcog~~izes indjvidLtal diiFferences in children" instructional needs. I have already tried to suggest one pcrssibk basis for such a policy*'lb conclude this chapkr, i would tike to consider some potential problems in the implementation of that policy

Possible Problems with Multiple Tiers of Li-ztemes-Etionas Ed~cationaEPolicy Clearly a multiple-tier policy is only as good as the syskm cJf ongoing assessment and intervention behilnd i t If chddren's progress in reading is not: carehlly monitored and if the inilial tiers of intenicntion are weak, then. still will be mmy children whose educational needs are not being met or who are in special education mmecessarily. For example, children like the four lowest-achieving readers in the Center Sehooi p m g r m should be targeted for intervention long before ~achirrgtJle third grade. It also is essmtid that this (or any otlrter) educational policy &bch funding in such a way as to promote rather than inadvertentv discourage early intcirvrsntion, Early intervention requires monitoring not only overall reading achievement but also the underlying cognitive abilities that are important in readmg acqujsition. At the k h d e ~ a r t e nand first-grade levels, for instmce, three especially important pmdictors of reading art- howledge

Cart We Cct Thercfiom Here? Fut ~4reEducnf ion Pt~ll'cy

269

of letter names and sounds, phonologicat akvarc.ness, a d rapid-namimg abil,ities, If educators monitor these abifities clrtwly, they can target many children fur help early, before they faIf far behind their peers in rcading. Accomplishing these aims, hwever, requires that educators be knowledgeable about the cognitive processes involved in literacy m d skilled in helping children to develop I-hose processes, Many teacker-education pmgnlms, especially at the p~servicelevel, have not caught up to tl-re explosion of scicrntific howledge about reading acquisition (Nolen, McCukhem, & Berninger, 1990). Eurthermort;, ~glalar-classroomteachers already have a tremendous amount: of knokvledge tt? acquistl in a four- or even five-year baccalarare ate program. Specialists in education can have a valuable role to play in helping regular-classrot>mteachers to meet the needs of all youngstersif the specialty is framed in the rig& way. lnstead of fncusjng on diag~nosing '"earning disabilities," "special educators might specialize in h o w l edge about the cognitive abilities that are important in various domains of achievexnent-, inclttdir?g reading, and in h o d e d g e about how best to develop those abilities, Because there are other specidists involved in workfng with poor readers (e.g., ~ a d i n g consultants and =medial-wading t e a h r s ) , ~ f r m i n t-he g fJDfield also might rclquire special educators to resolve some ""turf" issues with other professional groups. These issues might be seeled in any number of ways (e.g., based on the tier of intervention) but should be done in a m n n e r that is flwible enough to allow the best use oi the buman resources available at a given school. Another consideration involves the variability across school districts that is especidly characteristic of public education in the United States (Berliner & Biddle, 1995),That is, not only is there tremenduus variability in how well funded schools are, there is substantiai variabili.ty in the actual. content of the currkdurn. For example, one schoul &strict may place a relatkely strong emphasis on direct teaching of wod-recognition skills at the first-gracie level, wherclas that empha"i" may be much less in 1 is likely that more ct-tildren will need "ina neighboring school district. X tensive intervention" to learn word-recognition skills in the second district than in the first. This example illustrates why we should not make assumptions about the causality behind ct-tild~n'sneed for intenshe intervention. However, it also illustrates that improvements in regularclassroom ~ a e i i n ginstruction art? fundamental to the design and implememtatian of a sound educationai policy for helping children with reading difficulties, 811 children should experience a mading program that balances instruction in basic skills with instrwtion ifl many other crucial aspects of readiurg such as higher-level cmprehernsion abilities. Of course, exactly what constitutes a '"good balance" is oopen to interpretation. Should first-grade teachers spenci 30 pcrlrcmt of their readfng

program developing word rttcognition? 'Thirty percent? Fifty percent? Furthermore, for childre11 who need more htensive intervention, what is "intensive"? For example, is it possible for smafl-group instmctim to be as intensive and as effective as one-to-one tutoring? Which variables, other than level of intensity might need to be manipulated in designkg interventions? And for child.ren who do not seem to be responding to a given tier of interwention, how long should we wait before cmcluding that the intervention has had a fair trial m d that the children need a dif&rent or more intensive type of intervention? C>hviously,although research is begirming to prowide some answers to these kinds of pestions (see, @.g,,Torgesen, Cllhapter 5, this volume), mort. research is needed. Nevertheless, questions about the efficacy and optimal d e s i p of various intemmtions are already with us. Current educational policy does not save us from mswering such questions; it merely fails to focus our attention on them. A good educationd policy for all poor rc-raders, including those currently LabeIed as learning &sa"oled, would provi,de the instructional opli.nns ch,ildren need withmt m k i n g unwarrmt& assumptions abmt those children. We can '"get there h m here," but only if W fully disengage educatimai policy from the traditional construct of rt?ading djsabi,lity

References Adarns, M. J. (1990). Bcgirzning to rend: Tlfinking and lcarnirzg about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. AlIington, R., (4r L i , S. (1990). Te~ci'letbeliefs aboznlf children zolzo find leamizzg to r e ~ d dzficufl-.Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL. Anderson, R.,Hiebest, E., Scott, J,, CZr Wilkinson, I. (1985).Becotrti~zgn nafi;a~ ofreaders: The report of the Cumrnission on Readitzg. Champaign, I t : Center fcrr the Skdy of Reading. Berlinex; D. C., & Biddfe, B. J. (1995). Tlze mnnraf~clltredcrisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack aB Amerim's pziblie sckools. Reading, M A : Addison-Wesley. Berninger, V. W., & Abbot, R, D. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude-achievement discwpmeies to failure to respond to validated treatment prc)tocolti. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Fmntcs of rqere~ceforrlre assessment of leezrr-zing disnbilifks: Nero vicws or2 measuresnertt isszacs (pp. 16%183), Baltimore, MD: Broakrzs. Chall, J. (1983). Lea.nl-rzingto read: Tfzegrmt debate Crevised). New York: McGraw-Hill, Chiu, C., Hong, V., &: Dweck, C, (1994). Toward an integrative model of personality and intelligence: A general framework and some preliminary steps. In R. J. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis, Personality and intellige~ce(pp. 104-130). New tlurk: Cambridge Universiv Press. Clark, M. L). (19971, Teacher response to learning disabilities: A test of attributional principles. Joztmnlqf L e a r ~ i fDisnbiifitia, z~ 311,69-79.

Cart We Cct Therefiom Here? Fut ~4reEducnt ion Pt~licy

271

Clay, M, M, (1985). The mrly detectiorz of rcrraditzg dzficulties (3rd ed.), PorQmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cole, D. A., MaxweXt, S. E., (4r Martin, J. M. (199'7). Reflected seXf-appraisals: Strmgth and structure of the relation of teacher, peer, and parent ratings to children's seff-perceived competencies. Journal c$ Educ~CiocknnlPsycltology, 89, 55-70. DenckIa, M. B., LeMay, M., & Chapman, C. A. (1985). Few CT scan abnormalities found even in neurotogically impaired learning disabled children. jourlzal of Learrziztg Dz'sabilifies,3 8, 132-135, Division for Learning Disabilities, (1995, Summer). Proposed new LD criteria. DLL) Times, 5,8. Dweck, C. S., (4r Leggett, E. 1,. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality, Psyclzological Review, 95,256273, Fcdeml Rqisfet (1 977; December 29) (6508245085), V\Jashington, DC. Felton, K, H. (1993). Effects of instruction on the decoding skills of children with phonological-prc~cessingprcjblerns. Jvzrrnlrl of Lmrnirzg Disabilities, 26,58>589. Fletchel; J. M., & Faorman, B. R. (1994). Issues in definitian and measurement of learning disabilities: The need for early intervention. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Fmmm of referetzcefor ttic assessment of learr-zingdisabilities: New views on measureltzelzf issues (pp. 185-200). Baltimore, MU: Brookes. Fleteher, J. N., S h a y i t z , S. E., Shankweiler, D. E, Katz, L., Liberman, I. Y., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J,, Fowler, A. E., & Shayvvitz, B. A. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disabiliv: Comparisons of discrepancy and lcjw achievement definitions. lourlzul of:Edumliuiu(tlntPqctzology, S6,&23. Flc>wers,D. L. (1993). Brain basis for dyslexia: A surnmas)r of work in prcjgress. )t?urr-zalufhgrr-zi~tg Disabilifies, 26,5E-582. Flowers, B, L., Wood, E B,, & Nayfox; C , E, (1991). Regional cerebral blmd Flow ofRIeurott?gy,48, correlates of language pmcesses in reading disability. Arcfiilctriz?~~ 637443, Frankenberger, W, & Harper, J. (198v. Stateskriteria and prcjcedures for identifying learning disabled children: A comparison of l981 182 and 1985186 guidelines. Jourrznk of Learni~gIlisabill't-ies,20,118-121. Calaburda, A, &M,,Sherman, G. F., Rosen, C. D., Abc~itiz,F., & Geschtvind, N. (1985). Developmental dyslexia: Four consecutive patients with cort..icaXanornaties. Annals of Neurology, 18,222-233. Gardner, H. (1983). Fr~rrzeof mirzd: Tke fjzeory of nzult iple ifitelligences, New York: Basic Book. Gough, I? B,, & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Rerr-tedinland Special EdumCbn, 7,6-10. Hiderr, E, H. (1994). A small-group literacy intervention with Chapter l students. In E. H. Hjebert & B, M. Taylctr (Eds.), Cctfizzg readirzg rig"lltfi.omtlte start: Efecfiw early literacy i~zlerverttiuns (pp, 85-106). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hynd, G. W., & Sernrud-Clikernan, M. (1989). Dyslexia and brain morpholicjgy. PsycIzolt~gicalBzJlefi12,106,447482. Keogh, B. K. (1993). Linking purpose and practice: Sucial-political and develogmental perspectives on classificatim, In G. K, Lyon, D. B. Gray, j, E Kavanagh, CZr N. A. Krasnegor, Better understanding lear~i~zg disabilities: Nezv viezos fro~rz:re-

scarctr alzd tticir ilnpticnlions fur educ~liorzalzd publk pu/icies (pp. 344-323). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Keogh, B. K., Gallimore, R., (4r Weisner, 1I: (1997). A socioculturall perspective on learning and learning disabilities. Learning Bisnbilities Researcl? & Practice, 12, 107-1 13. terwr, j, (l%?). Lcarr-zingdisnbilifies: T!jeuries, diagfztlsis,and teaching sfrategics (7th ed.). Bostc~n,MA: Houghton Mifflin. Mann, V: (19941, Phonological skills and the prediction of early reading problems. In N. C. Jordan & J, Goldsmith-PhiXlips (Eds.), Ler;lrtzing disabilities: Mew directiotzsfor nssessme~zf. and interuetzf.iotz(pp.67-84). Bastcm, MA: Allyn and Bacon. McGill-Franzen, A., & lames, I. (1990). Teaclter beliefs about remedial alrd learniq disabled r e ~ d e l Paper ~. presented at the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL. Minskoff, E. (1996). IRA attacks on learning disabilities. DLL) Times, Spring/Surnmer, 10-11. Mcjat-s, L. C., (4r lyon, G. R. (1993). learning disabilities in the United States: Advcycacy, science, and the future of the field. 1t~unzniof-Learning Disabilities, 26, 282-294. Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentatiron predicts early reading and spelling skills, Reading Reseaxlz Quarterly, 32, 154-1 67. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1988). Letter to NJCLB member organizations. Nolen, P. A,, McCutchen, D,, & Berningel; V. (1990). Ensuring tomorrow" literacy: A shared responsibiliv. jozarnnl of Racltet EdzdcaCl;on, 4l,63-72. Qlson, K, K., Rack, J. Connersf F. A., DeFries, J. C., & Fulker, D. We(1991). Cenetic etiology of individual differences in reading disability. in L. V. Feagans, E. 5. Short, & L. J. Melsltzer (Eds.), Szkbtypes of Ienrr-zing disabililies: T!jcoricticat pcrspec(pp.113-135). Hillsdalit3,Nq: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. tives and t~3~earc"GJ Pikulski, J. J. (1996). IRA board questions definition of '"learning disabilities." Rmdizzg Today, August / September, 15. Rack, J. E, Snc>wling,M. J., & Qlson, R. K. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. Rmding Reeerrch Qliarterly, 27,28-53. S h a p i t z , S. E., Escobar; M. D., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. N., (4r Makuch, R. (1992). Evidence that dyslexia may represent the tower tail of a normal distribution of reading ability-New E~zglartdJournal I?(n/redl'el'ne,326,1145-150. Siegel, L. 5. (1988). Evidence that I Q scores are irrelevant to the definition and analysis of reading disability. C~nadi'allzjorlrrzal of Psyckology, 42,201-215, Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Juurnal c?f Ler;lrning Disabilit-ks, 22,469-478. Snow-, C. E., Barnes, W. S., ChandXer, J., Goc>dman,J. F., & Hemphill, L. (1991). UtzfllFIllrd eqectalioior?~: Home and school i~tflucncesorz literacy, Cambridge, M A : k-larvarcl Universiv Press. Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, K, 5, (1996). Ofltrack: Whe~zpour rcmders become "Itlarnir~gdisabled," Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Stanovich, K. E, (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Readr'tzg Researcl! Quarterly, 221, 360406.

Cart We Cct Thercfiom &re? Fut ~4reEducnfion Pt~licy

273

Stanovich, K. E, (1991). Discwpmcy definitic~nsof wading disability: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Qtlnrterly, 226,7-29. Stanovich, K. E., & Siegef, L. S. (1994). I""henc>Qgicperfcyrmance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regressic>n-basedtest of the phanologcal-core variable-difference model. Jwrnal afEdclcntio17alPsyeZlology, 86,124-53. Stenrrbergf R. f, (1988). The frickrchic mind: R new thmty of Izufnnn infelligepzce.New Ycxk: Viking. StenrrbergfR, 5, (1994). Thinking styles: Theory and asxssment at the interface between intelligence and personality. In R. J, Sternberg & P. Ruzgis, Personality alzd itztelligertce f pp. 169-187). New Uork: Cambridge University Press. Targesen, j. K. (1991). Learning disabilities: Historical and conceptual issues. In B, 3'. L. Wong (Ed.), Lmrnirzg about learning disabilities (pp. 3-37). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Tc>rgesen,J. K., (4r FSecht, S. A. (1996). Preventing and remediating reading disabilities: Instructional variables that make a difference for special students. In M. F. Graves, E .\randen Ifroek, & B. M. TayXor (Eds.), ntefirsi: R: E z ~ child's T ~ riglgf lo rmd (pp. 133-159). New York: Teachers College Press. Targesen, J. K., Wagner, 1%.K,, $r Rashotte, C. A. (19%). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. journal of Learrting Disnbifities, 27, 27t~286, Tc>rgesen,J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Burgess, S., & Hecht, S. (1997. Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to the grc~wthof word-reading skills in second- to fifth-grade children. Scient@c Sfzrdiss of Readitzg, 1, 461-485. Vetlutino, E R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (19%)).Bridging the gap between cognitive and neuropsych~logicalconceptuafizatiom of reading disability Learrzipzg n ~ Xndie?idzi~zl d Dtfere'evtces,3, 181-203, Walberg, M, I,, &E Tsai, 5. (1983). Matthew effects in education. Amen"cnn Educatl'onal Researcl? journal, 20,359-373. Weissbourd, R. (1996). The vt.tfnerwbfechild: W l u f real4 Ittlrts Anzerica's children and wlzat we cau do about if, Reading, M A : Addison-Wesley. Wolf, M. (19%). Naming speed and reading: The cuntributlion of the cognitive neurosciences. Rmdi~zgResearch QunrkerEy, 26, 423-444. Woodcock, R. W., & JohnscYn, M. B. (2989). I/vuodcat-k-jollnsan Tests cf AcllievetncsztRevised. Boston, M A : Houghton MiffXin. Zigmond, N. (1W3). Learning disabilities from an educational perspecthe. In G. R, Lyon, D. B, Gray, Jj, F. Kavanagh, & N. A, Krasnegor, Bctler urzdersfa~zding d ri m p l i c n f i ~ ~ sCiducafion fir and Iearrzirzg disabilities:New viei-usfiom resenxlz a ~ tI:2eE' public policies (pp. 252-272). Baltirmore, MD: Brooket;.

This page intentionally left blank

PART FOUR.

Conclusions

This page intentionally left blank

Epilogue: Toward an Emerging Consensus About Learning Disabilities

Just what does it mean to say that John-or Jean or Jaime or anyone else-is "learning djsabled."? The answer to this question proves to be madde~~ingly complex. Ncrt only are there disagreements as to what Imnzing disabled means, there are disagreements as to whether the concept is even meianingftll. Despite the disagwements, them is a surprising degree of e m e r g i s cmsensus m o n g experts in the field regardhg a number of key issues. My goal in this epilogue is to argue that the field is progressing toward some major points of consensus even if it has not fully converged t o w 4 a unified view of learning disabilities as biologjcal, psychological, and socictal phenomena. At the same t h e , E will mention some of the main points of disagreement.

Paints af General Agreement Here are what E view as 4,5 key points of broad consensus. I . Leailmi~qdisabilitks xpwsel~fIE diversity ufdistz'rzcl phelzmenn, uot a single oar?.Aithough lennzi~qdisnbility m i e t sound like a unitary phenmenon, the cmsensut; of expert theoreticims, researclhers, and practitioners is that it is not. We do children and adults alik. a disservice si.mgly by lumping them into a category of learning disabled (tf)), Experts disagree as to the exact number of learning disabilities and even as to their exact identities, It seelns clear, fnr example, &at mathmatical disability is separate from rcadjng disabjlity and that reading disabili.ty can manj.fest its& in different forms ~ g a d e s of s whether it is u n i t a ~in a bidmgical Preparation of this cl~apterwas supported in part by grant E061470M01 from t11e Javits Prc~gramof t11e U. S, Office of Ebucatic>natResearcl-\and fmprovement,

277

sense..A task for the fuhlre is to develop a better taxonomy cJf the types of learning disabiljties, and to determiae how they are simii,ar and different. 2. Dlferent types of learning disnbifitim need kl be dinpmed and treakd diffirelzfly, The existence of different types of learning disabilities irnplies that there is no magic bullet-no single instructional program or evern means of identification-that is going to answer every question we rnight wish to pose ei&er with =gad to instruction or assessment. "LD dassesf" that provide a uniform regimen of instruction for children diag~nosedas LD are bomd to be inadequate because they assume that one size fits all stutfents. Any good method of assessment and prograrn cJf instruction will have to be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals being instructed or assessed, 3. Lenming disabilities, rat least reading disability, haue ra getzetic compo~mt. Even co~ntextualistsagree h some cases learning disability is biological In nature and its origjns are partialIy genetic. Current research suggests that chrommomes 6 and 15 may be keys to understanding the gmetic origins of reading disability (see Cllson, Chapter t, in this volume, and Grigorenko, Chapter 2). is also agreement that not all poor readers, and probably not even most poor readers, are going to be identfied through chromosomal analysis. Leami~1gdisnbilitks run kfamilies. Because some h d s of learning disabilities are partially genetk in origin, they in fmilies. R e closer the fmily relationship of two hdividuals, the more likely the two individuals arc to share this particular form oi disability. Sixnilarly, identical Wins arc more likely than fraternal twins to share such disabilities. 5, &nvil.tnzrrrmtaI co~rtexfaflects h070 gnzefic p1;~"dispositio1.~s r~rat~$esfthemselves. Not e m the m s t ardent biological theorlists fail to a s s i p a major role to the mironment, often a mle as large as that assiped by contoxbalists. Gmes always have their effects through envisonments, and d3fel=. ent environments can result in a given set of genes expresskg itself in very different ways. Q. Some Ieami~agdis~bililiesshow thmselues in hain stmctures [email protected] fhoscl qf normal ilzdi~idtkals,The work of Hynd m d his collenges suggests that parts of the brains of certain le %-disabled inciividuais (such as the planum temporale) are physically different i,n some rcspects fmm thc brahs of those individuals who are normal readas. Xf p e t i c farctors do g disabiliiv, it would indeszd make pa&iallyuntferlie certain foms of lea sense for them to express &emselves &rou& differences in the brajn. 7. M a ~ childucn y z17h.u are Iabekd as Icnruing disnblai a ~ n ' tf, e ~ l can e assign labels and then reify the ccmstructs they have created, and they can assig~nlabels that are dotrbtful. and then create self-fulfilling prophecies thruugh their assignments. The work of Skrtic, Chdstensen, and SpearSwerling emphasizes the role of societal labeling in creath~ga nightmart. where children are unfairly labeled and treated; prest~mablyall of the

theorists in this volunle would agree that we c m easily create a class of unjustly labeled hdividuals Chrotrgh dubitabl.e practices of identification. Tn particular, as Christensen points out, the medical model does not provide a good way of understanding, disposing, or trt-latinglearning disabilities" 8. The Inhel of Eeanli~zgdisabled cnz crzd u p reinforci~galready ilxistiqfnnrrs of group discvim hzafio~z,Different groups perform differentially well on differ& kinds of tests. We11 such tests are vatid i r ~the way they are used, such group differences are a cause of valid educational concern and need to be addressed and, if possible, remedied. But if the tests artr being used i,n an invalid way, the use of the tests can actuatly help rej,nforce already existing forms of discrimination, as pointed out by Skrtic and Christensm. IQ tests show group differences, and because they are often used in a way that is not valid for identifying the reading disabled, they can end up contributLrrg further to discrimination against groups that do not score well on them. 9, [Q tests are ;Fypir:alklzot zlsefi~lin tlze dia'vosis ofleavrsh~gdisabilities. htel2lgence tests have been widely used in the diagnosis of learning disabilities, typicaily t h u g h the computation of a diffe~ncescorn between IQ and reading or other specific abjlity scores. Thc use of intelljgence tests in diagnosing learning disabilities is extremely probftmatical, a point made by Siegei and others. One cJf the greatest prohlems is that intelligence tests measure only a portion of intelligence. 'Thus one is not truly computing a difference between a level of intellifSenceand a level of ~ a d i n but g rather a differencebetween only an aspect of intelligence and reading. If one uses verbal tests h the IQ battery, readjng may be mcasured by the flrZ test as well as by th reading test; if one does not use verbal tests, one is looking at an even narrowc?r portion of intdigence. 'C'he bottom l h e is that IQ tests typically serve no usehl fuxzdion 21identifying the learning disabled. 10. Dzflereytce scores arc an zmdesimMe mans of i&~lf~ f i i ~ theq leaminfi. disuhlcd. Again, as pointed out by Siegt31, Spear-Swerling, and otkerst dsfermce scores are extremely problematical h identifying learning disabilities or, really, any&ing eke. For one thing, diBermce scores tend to be unmliable, m d the more highly cor~lat-ed the two things are that arc3 being cornp a d , the mose mrefiable the difference scoses are. :Foranoher thing, the difference is usually with rtrspect to IQ, which, as was disculased eartier, is a questiortable measure. Finatly, difference scores mean djfferent things at different points almg a continuum. Z"or exaxsrple, a diffemce of 10 points between an IQ score and a reading score means something different for f-above-averageshndents thm for below-average students. 13. The current U.5, system offirndi~gaciualfyefzcourages isrcspunsihilify in fhe ide~zCificatio~z offhe Eenr~i~zg disabled. "fhe current system of fundhg education in the United States has created the perverse situation where

schools and school districts are remrded financially for identifying children as learning disabkd. 'They are iiktrly to mc&e extra fwncfing for each child so identified. This method. of fund.ing actually encourages irresponsible identification of children as leanling disabled and further encowages parents to want theis children to be labeled so that the children will ~ c e i v eextra services, What helps in the short run may not help in the long mn, however. Ch-tce identifed, the children hawe a label assigned to them that tends to stick with them and that may result k their behg treated as intellectually inferior to their not-so-identified peers. 12, nilc best rrlmlzs of: identgication rue !avc for readi~zg-distrbledi~ldivid~mls are tests I!/: @onological pmcessijjg. mere are no perkct tests of anything. But tests of phonolugical processing, described in some &tail by Wagner and Garon (Chapter 4, this voiurne), 'lbrgesen (Ch3ptt.r 5), and Pressley (Chapter G), provide the best means cursfmtly available to identify the reading disabled. Indeed., even biologically oriented, theorists such as Shaywitz and her cdeagues bave identified phonological pmcessing as key to mderstmding readjng disabilities. We are less far along in id,c.n,tiiying indjviduals with other kinds of learning disabjlities. The phmological tests do not specificafly distinguisln gardcm-variety poor readers h m disabled readers; but (1)it is debatable as to how much of a difference there is between the two groups, and (2) even if the two groups are different,it is not clear at this point that there is any way at af2 in which the appropriate treatment interventions are different. 13. Atrfomntizatiorzfailt~reis also a cu~~imolz s&n of karrzi~zgdisability, As pointed out by Samuels in Cl-rapter8, reading-disabled individuals show deficlits in phonological processing in particular and in their automatization of phmological processing and other kislds of information processing in general. Copitive processing that for other people is effortless, autcmtatic, and relatively paidess can be effordul, controlled, and even pahful for the ~ a d i n g disabled. 14. Conrprehetzsic~~z as ruell as pi"zonologil.ul processi~2gis afecfed in the case of readi~~g disahilit?!. Experts on ~ a d i m gdisability tend to focus on deficits in phonological processing, but over the long haul and sometimes over the short had, readi~~g-disabled ineiividuals h o w deficits in higher-order comprehension skills as well, a point emphasized by Pressley. Such deficits may well be a long-term product of the phonologicaI deficits. Because ~aeiing-disabledpersons fnvest more resources in their efforts at phonological &coding, t h y have fewer resources left over to cope with higher-order verbal comprehension, Particuhrly as children get older, ddirits in verbal comp~hensionare likety to become more and more salient. 15. Trai~zingprogmms to help readi~zg-disabledi~zdiadualsneed to t a k into account nlzd remediaft. idelztqied cof;i~ifizre deficifs, Readi~~g programs for

poor readers of any stripe need to dewelop phonological, automatization, and comprehension skills. Progrms need to be tailored to specific forms of ~ a d i n or g other disability, and thus a program that works for one individual may not necessarily work for another. Most jmportant, instrucknal programs need to focus on scie~~tiPicalXy identified deficits rather than hype, There is an enomous amount of hype and faddism in the reading field, resulti~~g in points of view and even progrms that are affectivdy satit;fying to their users but that have no scientific basis. Such programs are almost never adequately evaluated, for obvious Rasons, but nevertheless continue to be used. ?'hey do a disservice to childrcn and teachws aiike. Raining programs sl.rould help students build on strengths as well as helphg them remediate and compmste for weaknesses. They need to be based on a science of learning d.isabiljti,es, a science to which all the arnthors ol this book have attempted to contribute.

Paints of Disagreement In this epilogue, I have concentrated upon points of consensus. C)f conrse, consensus does not underlie every issue. Three rnajor points of disagreement stand out, I. Are poor readin
logical and cognitive theorists. The Iatter do their mearch p r i m e m individuals. The former view learning disabilities primarily as labels assigned by a system that can h as much a cause as m effect of educational problems. UltimateIy, again, both points of view m probably needed fully to understand learning disabilitiesat aU levels of analysis. Conclusion

h this epilogue, I have tried to outline some of the main points of mm u in the field of learning disabilitim, as asell as more briefly to mention some of €hedisagreemenis. Although d our questions about learning disabilities have not been answered, we have come a long way since the days when we believed that learning-disabled children might be identified primarily byf say, visual impairment or a tendency €oreverse lettens. W e SWhave a long way to go,

About the Editors and Contributors Carol A. Christensen is a senior lecbrer in educational psychology at the University of Queenslmd, Brisbane, Australja. Her rclsearch has focused on the cognitive characteristics of students with learning disabilities as well as the social factors that result in the identification and classification of iearning disabilities. She has published work on the role of phmoiogical awareness in readjng, the development of c v i t i v e m d metacwitive skills, and the social constwtion of learning disabilities. She rece11tly edited a book wilh Fazal Ri,zvi tit;led Disabilit'y and the Dilmrmlas Itf Education and ]ustice. Amanda B. Cfinton is a doctorai student in school psychotogy at the University of Georgia. She has hvorked as a school psychologist and is currently completing clinical and research experiences in Medellin., Colombia. She is interested in language and the brain, particularly neuropsychological issues relakd to second-language learning. Tamara Gamn is a doctoral candjdate in cognj.tke and behavioral psychdogy at Florida State University Her research focuses primarily on the effecb of Iinguistic complexjty on children's oral- m d written-lmguage skills. EIena L. Grigo~nkois a research scientist at Yalc and associate professor at Moscow State University- Her current interests include learning disabilities, developmental dyslexia, and broader issues concerning the efkcts of ill health on children's cognitive develogmmt. JenniferR. Hiemenz is a doctoral student in school psychology at the University of Georgia. Ffer research interests are related to the application of neuroimaging procedures in developing a better understanding of brain-behavior xiations in reading djsorders, She rccently coqleted research at the University of Jyvaskpla in Fistland using functicmal magnetic resonance imaging procedurtls (MN)in familial dy slexics. Gearge W, Hynd is research professor of"special education and psychology and director of the Schod of Professional Studies at the University of Geoqia. He also directs the Center for Clinical and Developmental Pllewropsychology Dr. Hynd's research has fncuscd on the

2134

About fhe Editors and Co~frib~itors

relationship betweell planurn temporale morphology and readislg disability and on the frequent co-occurrence of learning disabilities and ADHD. Richard K. Qlson is professor of psychology a.t. the University of Colorado and associate director of the Center for the Study of Learnhg Disabilit_iesat the I~~sititute for Behavioral Genetics. His research has focused on the gelzetic and environmental etiology of reading disabilities and on. the remediation of reading disabilities through the use of computer speech progmms.. MichaeX G . Pressley is professor of psychology and director of the Masters Program in Teaching at the University of Notre Dame. He currently serves as the editor of the Joz~nzulof Educational Psychology. fn recent years, he has conducted researclh on the nature of teaebing Chat produces high literacy achievement. S. Jay Samueils was the coedit;c,r of Rending Reseamit Qzsurterly. He holds Ihe Wiltiam S. Gray Distinguished Resenrch Award from the International Reading Association and the Oscar Carasey Research Award from the National Readiw Conference. He is a mernber of the Reading Hall of Fame. Linda S. Siege1 is professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and Special Educatim at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, and holds the Dorot:hy C. Lam Chair in Special Edumtion. She has conducted research in language and cognitive develetpnent, the role of psychoeducational assessment in the identification of learr.ling djsabiljties, biljngualisrn, prernaturc m d fiigh-risk idants, and the early identification of learning disa:bilities. She was the editor of the Itztematioaal fournu1 ofB&noioral Devefopme~ztand an associate editor ol Chiln! De-

velopmmf. Thornas M, Skrtic is pmfessor of special education policy and administration at the University of Kansas. His published works include Behind Spa:kl Edzicafiolz:A Critic~lAlznlysis $P~ofessiulzuI Culfrrrc ancl School C)rganizafio~z(1993), Special Educntio;tz and Student: Disability: Trndlfio;tzal,Ertzerging, a~zdAltcmuf ivrr Persptvcti~esf 19951, and Disabitity nltd Dmocracy: Recol~stmcfing(Special) Ed~ctlliorzfor Postmodernity (1995). His academic interests are philosophiral pragmatism, organization theory, policy implementation, and democratic education. Louise Spear-Swerlixtg is professor of special education at Southern Connecticut State Unlversiw in New Haven, Comecticut, She has taught in plablic schools in both special-education a d regdar-classroom setting" Her speddties are readine; acquisition, reading difficulties, and literacy instmction with at-risk youngsters and individuals with learning disabiliities. Keit-h E, Stanovich is c~~rrently professor of humm development and applied psychology at the Ontario Institute for Studjes in Education,

Abazl t fhe Editors m d Cofiiribafors

2135

University of Toronto. He has twice received the Albert J. Harris Award from the International Reading Association for influentid articles on reading disaibilities and in 1995 was elected to the Readil7g Hall of Fame. He is a redpient of thc Gear Causey h a r d :mm the National Reading Conference for contributions to research, and he is a fellow of both the Amerkm Psycholngical Association (Divisions 3 and E) and fie American Psychological Society fn 1,997, he received the Sylvia ficribner Award from the American Education Research Association. Author of over 125 scientfic papers, since 1986 he has been the associate editor of the Merrill-Palmer QrkarterIy, a leading journal of human development Robert J. Sternberg is XRM Prokssor of Psychology and Education in the Department of Psychohgy at Yale University A fellow of eight diwisions of the American Psychological Association, Sternberg is also a kllow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for fie Advancement of Science, and the American Psychotogical Society. He is past ediFor of the Psychologic~lBulletits and incolning edjtor of Contempomry PsycholoCv.Sternberg is the author of roughly 650 articles, books, and book chapters and coauthor of two books on reading disabilities, (!fl Tvwch; with I:.,owiseSpear-Sweclhg, and The I,D L o t f e y with Elena Gfigorenko, Stemberg has won numrous awards from organizations such as the American Psychologicai Association, the American Educational ksearch Associalion, and the Society for Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Joseph K. Toqesen recehed his PhD in developmental and clinical psychology from the University of Miehigm in 1,976, and he is currently DisthguiAed Research Prczfessor of Psychology at Florida State University. Over thr past ZC1 years, he has published over 100 research articles, book chapters, or books on the subject of learning disabilities and reading development, m d he is on the editorial board of five prclfessional res e m h journals. He and his colleague fichard Wagner have been studying the developmnt. of rtzading and phonological processes for the past ten years, m d he is currently directing one oi two five-year grants from the National InstitMe of Child Health and Human Development to study the prevention and remediation of reading disabilities in young children. With Richard Wagner, he is also workjng on the development of a comprtrhension diagnostic test of phonological processes in reading. Richaxd K. MTagner is professor of psychology at Florida State University. He earned a PhD in cognj.tive psychology from Yale University in 198%.He previously earned a master's degree in school psychology from the University oE nkron, and before ernbarkjag on his research career, he completed a year of internship and two years as a school psychologist. His major area of rtrsearch interest is the acpisition of complex copitive bowledge m d sElls, which he has pursued in two domains, h-t the domain of readhg, his research has focused on the role of readhg-related

2136

About fhe Editors and Co~frib~itors

phonolagical processkg abilities in the normal and abnormal development of reading skills and on the prediction, prevention, and remediation of dyslexia. In the dcrmah of human irrtelligence, his resemh has hcllsccf on the role of practical knowledge m d intelligence in inteflectual perlformmee mmifttsted outside tbe classrow setting.

Index

Absher, J. R,, 34,35 Aecoun tabiEty 20&207 Achievemat tests, 70. See ulso Testing ADD. See Auditory Discrirnii~ationin Depth Program m ADFTD. S f e A t t e ~ ~ t iDeficit Flyperactivity Disorder Adhocraeies, 198, 20&20Yt 212,214-21 8, 239(n6) African America~s,75,234,250,257 Age, 23-14,39,162 Atarcon, M,, 7,11,14 B., 231,232-233,234,244 Atgc>zzix~e, Atlington, R,, 259 AXfjteratic~x-t,140, 141 Ambr-ose(Saint), 48 Andersur~,Valerje, 1.49 Arithmetic, See Mathematics Ashton, G, C., 41 Assessments, 242-244 Assumpt.ions, xi, 86-87,99,125,148,165, 166,167,231,232,233,8236, 2311,239, 242,243,244,253,254,256,257, 25&259,270 ax9d redefining reading disability, 262(tabfe), 264,266,267 See also latzder Special educatic31-t Attenlicm, 181,182.183. See ulso Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Attexttio~~ Deficit H ypaac tivity Disorder (ADHE)), 16,i"(f,74,161 detectitm of, 163 Auditory Discrimination in Depth (ADD) Program, 123-124,125,127 Augtrstiine (Saint), 48 Australia, 39,234 Autoimmul-te disc~rders.See tinder Dyslexia

automatic it^ 180,182---13,280.

Spe also

under Reading skills Bakwin, I-I., 37 Bax-tdura, A., 241 Behavicwal-genetic perspective, 3,1519, 22. See ufso Envirt~nmentaZ perspective; Genegc perspective Biological perspect;ive, 252. See also Brain pr~esses/s&~xc ture; Dyslexia, biological fotartdatia~~s of; Ge~tetic perspective; Learnh~gdisabsiities, as intrb~sicdisorders Bloom, B. S., I80 Book on tape, 149-1 70 Bowers, Patricia, 115 Bradley, Ly-x-tette,140-142 Brain processeslstructure, vii, 24,26,27;, 86,107,110,111,11C;--118,139,278 ax~gulargyrus, 34,35,36 areas and cognitive processes, 33--3hJ 36,44,63,65,6W9,75, 116 brain develc>pment,6-7,45,&, 60, 61-69,73,116,118 brain injury labnormatily; 31-32'44, 45,69,117,222,228,229,230, 231-2232 Brodmar-tr-t'sArea 37,3;1,36 ax~dcomparison of rtorxnal/disabled subjects, ,3;2,35,36,&2,65,68, 13C;--117 ax~ddyslega, 31-37,M ftlnctio~talskdies, 33-37 gydfificatic3n prcxess in, 61-62 imagirng, 32-33,biO, 6344(figs.), 651, 111. See U!SO Mapetic r-escyltarlce irnagng; Posifrtlx1-emissio17 tc~mtlgraph y major lax9dmarks in, 62(fig.)

plax3tlm temporale, 32,6M5,64(fig.), 65-66, 1666-6"7(figs.), 75,258/ 278 plasticity of, 47 sulcal/gyral patterns in, 65-68 symmetrylasymmew in, 32,6%65, 65&6,6&&Zffigs.),75 thalamus, 31,3536 Werxiicke" Area, 34,35 Eremer, C./ 181 Bridge Reading Propam, 170 Brown, A, L., 146,147 Browi~,R., 148,149,151 Bruck, M,, 144 Brymt, Peter, 140-142 Cadon, L, R., 14,15 Carrier, J,, 235,238,243 Castles, A,, 12, 23 CausaGon, viii, ix-X, 3,2';7,38,39,42,44, 45,46,47,73' 74,145,86,97-98,It)l, 107,1~J9,110,111,118,121,172,196,

232,256,257-258,259,269 in acquiring word-level readirtg skills, 949'i7,9&97(t-;tbIes), 114, 21 5-1 16 multiple, 120 CELF-R. See Clinical Evafuatic3n of L a ~ g uge a Func6clx1s-Revi sed Test Change (orgar1izatic?na1), 198, 2(13-21J41 209,210,222,218, See also Reforms Childs, B., 5,89 Chinese language, ix, 27,223 Chiu, C., 259 Chris~~3, Agatha, 171 Chromc~somes,14-15,443,44,118,278 Clark, M, B., 259 Clinical Evalrnaltioxl of Lax3page Furtclions-Revised (CELE-R)Test, 66(fig.) Coles, Cerald, 108 Collabc>ra6c>n,205,206,213,214,215,216, 217 Colorado Reading Project, X, 7,9,14-15, 37 Comorbidity, 70,7&?5,76 Competition, 236,237 Computers, X , 16,132,101,1170,184 Cc>nfSguratic>s2t h m y 198 Cc311necticut Lor~gi tudinal Sktdy, 89,98 Cons~ers,E, 10 Cc3mers Ratb~gScale 163 Context, use of, 129,265

Ca~rdinatic311 forgaz3izatic3nal),198,199, 200,201,203,205,213 Cotwin regressior~,8-9 Cox, J. L., 234 CurPicula, 72,269 Curriculum-based measu"emettt, 72 Dahlem, W E,, 168 Datta, H, E,, 12'13 Decker, S. N., 37,41 DeFries, j. C., 7,8,9,11,13, 14,38,34),41 Derncxracy 2(>16,216,217,218 Dellmark, 42 Deno, S. L., 244 Del~ver,4 Depressive disorder, 74 Deshler, Dor~ald,149 Deviance, models of, 195-196 Dewey, John, 216-217, 218 Diag~~c?sis, 32, S-75,87,98,10(3,11&122, 159,177,182,209,279 of automaticity in word rec~gnitio~~, 184-1 84 and medical, model, 229-230,232,233 sckool-based, 120,195,197 See illso Learning disabilit-ietl;, idei~tiifying;Tesling Dippo, D./ 233 Disabilities, 85%, 235 as social conslmct, 237 Disctlrurse anatysis, 239 Discrepar~cymodel, 70-71,73,75,147; 98, 121,163,165,166,167,168,228,229, 230, 231,238,251,253,254,255-256, 279 reformingt 261-264,265 Discridna tion, 279 DisrupGve studmts, 240 Diversity of students, 208,215,233,237 Division of tabor, 199,205,213 Doi~aldsun,S. A., 145 Doillan, D,, 187 Dudley-Marting, C,, 233 Duffy, C;, G., 147 Durkh, D,, 150 Dwarfism, 8&tQ4,87, 97-98 Dweck, C. S., 241 Dyi~amicassessme~~t model, 'i"2,73 Dyslexia, 117,145,1161,167-168,177 m d autoimmu~~e disorders, 43,44,45 biological foundations of, 2249. Sec also Braix~processes/ structure

deep vs. superficial phel-totypesof, 30 definiticms, 2526,29,228. SM also Reading disabiliy, definitims familial, 4M2,43 as fmguage-kee, 30,44,45. See also Phoz~ologicalcodh~g/decoding abilities, as metalinguistic r~europathologof, 31-32 paradigms of shdying, 22,27 risk for, Stl, 41 sex ratios co~tcerz~iflg, x, xi, 39,4O. Sec nlsv Lear~~btg disabilities, and sex differences societal attitudes about, 311-33 studtiints having cyVercome,178(tabIe) sulcal/gyral patterns in, 65-68 terms associated with, 24-25 transmissicm of developmental, 40-44 See also Reading disability Echevania, M,, 150 Educational equity, 214,215,217, 236, 239 Educa tjorial excellence, 217 Educational policies, 16,250-270 currei~t,253-260 future directions of, 260-2I70 Education for All Handicapped Childre11 Act, 70,210,219(n5), 228,253. See also Xz~dividualswith Disabilities Ebucatic>nAct EEG waveforms, ,73,35 Effectal~cemotivation theory 221 Effector geries, 45-47 Eggeit, P,, 176 Ehri, L. C., ix-X, 144 Embedded ghmics (EP) trainir~g,124, 125,127 Emergeitt literacy, 137-143 Emotions, 74, 128,172,2(lf),257 Environmental per~ective,40,4 and print exposure, 13/14. Sec also Print exposure shared /non-shared family mvironmenl, 4,6,9,10-l1 (figs.), 11-12, 13,14(fig-) See also Orgar1izaric112nt perspective; Social-system perspective; under Genetic paspective El?. See Embedded phr>nicstraining Escobar, M. E?,, 89

Failures. See School failure eh Dyslexia, Families, 3,&6,278. Sec . familial; Enviro~tmerttaf perspecfive, sl~arecl/nonshared family e~~viroximer~t; Ger-tetic perspective; Parents; T~rins Fetal develo~mer~t, 6,32,60,6143,69 Fhe-motc?r eclc)rdinatitlln, 166,168,l'i"O Fhk, R. l?, 177,178,187-188 Finucci, J. M,, 5,89 Fletchez; J. M,, 89,98 Flowers, B. L., 34,35 Fomaliza tiori, 199,200,201,202,203, 204,208,212 Forsberg, H., 9,13 Fow~das,A. L., 64 France, 29 Fraitcis, B,, 71 Friedman, G,, 7 Froster, W., 42 Fulker, D. W., 8,9,10,14,38,4 Funding, 70,235 234,252,253,269, 279-288

A, M,, 32,136 Galab~~rda, Gallimore, R., 257 Garrrzf, A. S,, 34,35,36 Gayax3, J., 12, 13 Genes, 42,45,46,4748,49. See AISR Chrc>mcf;c>mes;Gmetic perspective Ge1"~e therapy, 42 Ge~Ieticpersp~tive,3,6,11,12-16,17, 21,27,37--49,117,278 ax~denvironme~~tal per specfivef 6-7, 10-11 (figs.), 13, 14(fig.), 4748,69, 84,278 heritability of phcmological aspects of reading, 38,39,118,258 m d idei~tiQinghigh risk childrez~,15 neurogsychiatric genetics, 49 and pogtnlatio~tmean, 8-9 sex-linked, 89 Gema1-t~"; 27 Geschwind, N., 63/64 Gilger, J. W.., 39, 40, 41 Ginsberg, H, I?, 231 Gipps, C., 242 Goodmm, C. S,, 47 Goswami, U., 142

Gottfredsort, L., 5 Gradert, J. L., 24-4 Graham, I?, 7 Greensteh, J., l68 GPigorenko, E. L., 15 Grirnes, j, P,, 72 Guilt, 16 F-taines, L. F., 144 F-taXZgren,B., 7/23 Hatebulh, E., 41 Hardwick, N., 145 Hargreaves, B,, 240 Hay, D. A,, 39 Hermaitn, K,, 37 F-tertweck,A,, 234 F-tester,S,, 240 Hispmics, 75 Hcztlutt, A. M,, 254 Hcrhnm, B., 39 Haien, T., 28 Homelessness, 171 F-tomeabox ger2es, 46 F-tuey, E. E;., 179,180 F-tulme, C., 122 Hurnm gmcjme project, 15 Humil-iatioi~, 240 Hynd, G. W., 32,&5,75,278 Hyperactivity, 161. Sec aalso Attexttiio~t Deficit Hyperactivity IJisorder IDEA. See I~~dividuals with Disabilities Educatior~Act IEP. See Individuntized education prclgram Xllk~oisTest of PsychofinguisticAbilities (ITPA), 100 Immune system. SPCDyslexia, and au toinnmul-te discrrdess Incompc?tex~ce-a\roida12ce strategy, 240 India, 29 Individualism, 216,217 Xztdividualized ecf~~catior~ program (TEP), 230,238,2&246 Xztdivictuals with Disabilities Edrxcatior~ Act (IDEA), T%),72,73,86,99, 208-2QL3,21Of212-21 4,219(n5), 228, 253 Indush-ialization, 197,216 Inferences, 180 Xz~formatioms-processhg, vii, viii, X , 136, 280

Innovatiox~,204,205,206,214,215 Institutional theoryt 19&199,202-203 Intelf igence, 4 ii~eremmkfthec3sists vs. attity theoPists of, 259 Sec cklso EQs Interdependertce, 216,217 Interrtatiortaf Reading Asscxiatio~t(IRA), 167 IQs, 3,13, 14ffig.),43,i?Q,75,87,98,121,21;0 bias determining, 165 m d cog3i"rivecapabilities, 71 and definition of learning disabilities, 163-169 scatter on tests for, 87-88,89 tests far 87-88,89,163-169,195-4 96, 227,231,242,254,2179 See illso Discrepmcy model; Intellige~tce IRA. See Interr~aticrtalReading Associa~on Xti-rty,29 ITPA, Sec Illi~wOjsTest of Psychc~li~~g~jstic Abilli~es Iversorrt, S,, 126 james, WiIlliam, 179,180 Japa~~ese Ia~~guage, ix, 27'28 joh~s,M. S,, 145 joh~~so~t, M,, 18

fovnzul ofL,eurnirzg Disubilifies, ix juet, C., 128 Kimnada fal.lguage, 29 Kauchak, L),, 176 Kaufmm, A. S,, 88 Keogh, B, K., 257 Kigar, D. L., 67,68 Kimberting! W. J., 14/15 Kindergartell, 140,268 Kirk, S. A., 227 Kopinek, L., 234 LaBerge, B,, 180,181 LaBuda, M. C,, 38 Lalithamma, M. S., 29 Laxlguage Iateralizatjor2,64,68 Lmguages ncm-Ei~glish,24,22,29,31) recqtive IazIpage ability 66, &(fig.) second lmguages, 4,29,75 spoke11/writtc?n,29

LT>.See Leaniing disabilities Leanling disabilities (LP)) axid classroc~mlife, 23%239 cc~mparisc~r~s with cox~&c~l goup, 88, 234. See also Brain processes/ structure, and comparisori of normal /disabled subjects; Reading disability, compariscIri of disabled and poor/r~ormalreaders cc~~serzsus about, 277-281 definitions, 8&-t37,99,106-l@, 110, I20,159,163--ll.(9,176,195,227, 228-229,23& 253,254-255. Sec ~zrlso Dyslexia, defir~itions;Reading disability, definitions d isagremeri ts about, 281-282 diversity of phenomena, 277-278 dwarfism-versus-obesityartalogy for, 83-M, 87 and early faiture in school, 109. SW also School failure ide~~tifying, 160,1S4,170,171,208, 230,233-234,2339,240,243,244,246, 258,251,27%27") 2779-280, Sec also DiagnoGs; Readhg disabilityk iderttgying; Referrals for evaluatio~t as is~trinsicdisorders, 255,257, 25%259,264,265,266,281-282 and lQ tests, 163-169, iSee alsoi Cli"sct"epa~~c y model and learnh~gabilities, 137 vs..learning problems, 107 markers of, 87-90,39,129 medical-model vs, scxial-system perspectives for, 8586,85(table), 89. Sce also Medical-model perspective; Social system perspective ncturogsychtogicaf basis of, 6&76 nonverbal, 111,161 as orgmizational gathologies, 195-.218 as permanent, 232 primary disability, 257 represenlatio~~s of, 23%236,238, 244-245,245-246 requirements of complete &eory of, 109-111 secondary characteristics of children with#109

and sex differel-tces,88-tp9,90, iSee atsoi Dyslexia, sex ratios rc7riceniing as social practice, 233-235 specific disabiliv, 70,253,257 267-268,281 strategies to compe~tsatefar, 169-170, 232, See ~ l s Readi~~g u rc~rnpreher-tsio~~, strateges for; Trar2sactional strategies instm~ction subvpes of, 361-163, 169 talm ted indir~idualswith, 171, 178(tabte),187-188 teachers"perceptions of childre11with, 25%259 as term, xi, 70 SPCalso Dyslexia; Reading disability Leskmitzg Mystique, The (Coles), I08 L., 227 Lehtine~~, Lec>nard,C. M,, 32,68 Letters letter-name ktowledge, 997,256,2613, 269 letter reversals, 88, IQ9 SPCalso Orthographies Levitsky W., 63,64 Libmmm, Isabellc;, 113 Liste~~ing comprehe~~sion. See c.4ndev Reading comprehextsiun Logm, D,, 184 Lombardino, L., 175 Lovett, M. W., 123,3,45,IW151 Lubs, H, A., 15,43 Lmdberg, I., 29 McDezmott, R. P., 239,240-241,242, 24S24 McGilt-Franzen, A., 259 Machine bureaucracies, 197;,206 and professios~albureaucracies, 19&200,201-203,207,208,212,216 Mctoughlin, 'VaI7 Mapetic resonance ima@g (MW), 32, 6S--&(figs,), 6M8,%, 116-117,258 f tmct.ional,65,6%69 Mainstrrnrni~~g, 210,223,214,219(xi7), 232 Markers. Sec under Learning disabililries Marsh, G,, l44 Mastrc>pieri,M, A., 232 Maaernaticf;, 613,70,72,75,160,161,1S2, 164,166,280,200,202,231

Matthew effects, ix, 166-167, 1Z8,241, 256,262 Medical-model persp~tive,85(table), 85-86,87,88,98,99,100,101,1~5, 228,229-23(1,232,233,2&245,279 Mehat, H., 234,255,239,2&245 Meilzls, f, L., 234 Meister! C., 147 Mellor; E, 240 Melngailis, X., 41 Meltzer, L. J., 72 Memory 39,48,71, 114,115,153,149, 161,162,164,166,167,168, "LOP 181, 182,188 Mental retadatiort, 86,163-l&, 195,209, 234,263 M e ~ e rJ,,,195196 Meritc~cratic ctmcc;pts, 8236,237 Metaphors, 68 MelPogr>litanAchievemat Test, 176 Mexicart childre~t,2 39 Meyel; J, W, 203 Miles, TT. R., 29 Mlir-torities, 242. i%e als& Raciallethx~ic issaes; iun deri ;Special educa tjolt Mhskoff, E,, 267 M h t ~ b e r gH., ~ 204 Mstretta, J., 150 MRI. Sec Mapletic resonartce irnaging Murphy, P., 242 NASA, See Natio~JatAerostautics and Space Adrninistra~o~;l Naslund, J., 180 Nation$ Aerc3nautics and Space Adminislratior-t(NASA), 205-206 National Joint Comdttee on Lmrning Disabilities (PJTCLI)), 10&107, 2%-255,267 Naytc~t"~ C. E,, 35 Netherlands, 29 Neurr>psychoEogicafperspective, 60-76 NJCLD. See National Joint Committee an Learning Disabigties Norway, 29 Nozickr R, 236 0besil-y; 83-81 87,97-98,101 OLsen, R. K., X , 9,10,11,12,13,14,17,18, 128 011sets. 91,93,95 Orgmizatiortal perspeclive, 1193-21 8

fithc~gaphies f coding, 38, heritability c ~ oxth~graphic 39

orthographic coding, 10-11,13(fig.), 12,15, 34,35,38,38,111-112,135, 140,244 predse timirzg mechmism for co)ding, 115 as shallow/deep phos~ologically, 27-28/23 Sec cklso Letters Palincsar, A. S., 146,147 Pare~zts,4, 5-45, 336,40,42,137,14A?, 142, 143 and storybook readhg, 138-139 Pa thdogy, notic111 of, 193,19,5-396,208, 215216,219(n3), 229,230 organiza~c~iza1 vs. student pathcjlc?gy 237,238,242,246 Peabody f ndividuaf Achievemat Tests (PEAT), 9,1U, 10-ll(fgs.), 12,13,14, 40 Pdosi, 1,234 P e ~ ~ r ~ i n gB.t oE,~ 14, ~ , 15,41 Perso>nalizatiit>iz, 206,212,213,214 PET. See Posib011-emission tomography Pelerso>n,M. E., 144 Phonemes, 91,93,95,112-124 phos~emeawarmess, 10-11,13(fig.), 12,15,18,25,140,142. See also Pho~~olo@cal coding/decoding abilities, phonological awareness phoneme-grapheme correspox~det~ce, 27,120,123,124,125,261,186 Phr~~tes, 90-91 Phonic rules. 161, See also Pho~temes, phu~teme-papheme corrrzspondence Phc>no,tc>gicalcoding/becuding abilities, viii, ix, 3, 10-11,11(fig.), 12,13, 15, 12%-19,27: 32,34,36,231,268 deficits/jmpaii.rrten ts in, 25,28-29, 7 6 90-99,100,135-116, 161, 25SI 256, 263,266,267,280 double deficit hypothesis concerning, 11,5-116 EEG ccjrreIates cjf, 33 heritability of, 338,,79,118,258 inshglcticm in, 14%145,151 as metalinguistic, 25,29,30

phc~~tolo@caI awareness, 28,91-92, 93-94,95,95(tabIe), 96,99,114, 115, 119,120,123,129,125,231,257,260, 269. See also Phc>nemes,phcjneme awarelless phonological memory /naming, 32, 33-94,95(table), 96 and pla~rzrntemporate asymmetry, 75, See ~ I s oBrain processeslstructure, planurn tempclrale prc>cc?t;singabiliges ec>ncerniitg,91-94, 167 stability of, 95,95(tabte), 96 PIAT. See Peabody lndic~idual Achievemertli Rsts PikuXsitci, j.J,, 267 Pinheiro, S. B., 175 Phker, S., 25 Poland, 29 P o ~ t s k yS., 28 Positron-emissioj~ttomography (PET), % ,, 68,69 Posx~er,M. I,, 182 Postindustrial age, 206,217; 218 Postmortems, 31,6O, 63 Power issues, 82.35 PRD, See Readi~lgdisability phonolo@callybased Preschoot years, 137-143 Pressley, M,, 148,150 Prever~t;ion.See tinder Reading disability Prirzciplcs qf fiycholo~yGames), 174 Print exposure, 112,113,129,145,257. See also Storybm>kreadirtg; 14sdev Environmmtal perspective PraXIXem solving, 166,2Q1,2048206,207, 212,214,215,216,217 Prtjcessing disorders, 254 Prtjfessic~x~at bureaucracies, 203-204,205, 213,215,219(n8), See also tinder MachFne bureaucracies Prc>fmsioi~atization, 199,20@2fS1,207, 208,212,213,215 Pro~turtciation,112 Pseudowords, 119,161,263 Psycholinguistic ability, 1139 Psycholic,gists, 244 245246,256257 Psychology and Pedagogy r?f Readilzg, The (Huey), 179 Public education, 210,214,215,216,217, 218,237,269 Pugh, K. R., 3436

RaciaXlethnic issues, 15-16,7;1,75,%, 257 Rack, J ., 10 Rarnaa, S., 29 Rmsby, M, X., 145 Rapid-naming abifit3i, 114,115,116,119, 120,129,256,2@ Ra tjor~atity/rationalization (c>rgmizalic>naf), 196-19'i",199,2fSO, 201,202,203,203,2fS8,212

RD. Sec Reading disability 9,10,10(Bg.), Reading comprehe~tsio~t, 18,58,40,&, I;lj"(fig,),110, 112,121, 123,124,128,138,145150,161, 186, 255,263,268,280 md automaticilry of word recc>gqitit>n, 18(b181,1% md listening comprehmsion, 18% 261-262 strategies for, 146,147-149,151,181 tests far, 162, 164,177 Reading disability (RP)), 2I7,60,61,9U, 252 md ADHL), 7'4 biased studies of, 7 and co~titivelimitatio~ts,11%116,269 compariso~tof disabled m d poo~r/norxnalreaders, 98,114, 115, 121,167-1 68,231,255,281 definitiol~s,4,164,167,2511,263. Ssr nlsu Dysgexia, defb~itic~ns; Learnb~g disabilities, definitions familial bzcidence of, 44-6 idextliifyit~g,253-254,260,261. See also Learning disabilities, identifying instructional interver-ttionsfor, 117-118,120-121,122-129,143-151, 179. See also Pho~lolo@cal eodingldecoding abilities iitstruc6o11 in; Remediation; "Training studies/pragrams and irtter-rater retiability, 184-1 85 and IQ test scores, 364. SR also Discrepancy mc~del perspectives cm, vii-viii, 118 phc>nologicallybased (PRD), 111-129 prevmtion c$ 121,122,124,137. Sec nlso Reading disabiliv, and instructiortal htervertl;;io~ts and schods, 101

severity oft 5,414 three ga ttenis of, 116 See also Dyslexia; Leanling disabilities; Reading comprehc?llsic>n "Reading orgal," 25,26,49 Reading recognition, 38,M Readbg Recovery Program, 126,267 Readkg skills, 25,28,38-39,46,4&49, 6&67(figs.), 69, 70,172,75,100,116, 136,263 alphabetic, 113,119,120,121,122-123, 126,128,129 and automaticity, 176,177,178--188 distribution of, 98, 117 and expressive~~ess, 177,18$186 fluel~cy176-1 88 growth rates for word-level, 114, 127(fig.), 129 heritability of, 38-39, 45 negatirre effects c>f autc3maticilry; 183-1 894 orthographic, 112,113 axld pracgce, 178-177 182,187,188 reading stagtl.s, 178-1 '79,182-1 83, 3,186 spedficiq of,110 and unexpected reading failure, 259-260,261,263,265 word-level, 36,9&9T,9597(tables), 39, 113, 114, 119,123, 125, 127(fig.), 129 See also Emergent literacy; Phc~nologicalccding/decoding abilities; Reading comprehensic~n Reascming, deductive/inducti~~e~ 207, 215 Reciprocal teachir~g,146-147 Referrals for evaluat;ion, 88-89,30, 239-242 prereferral strategies, 267 See also Leanling disabilities, identiQing Reforms, 20M,214, See also Chmge; Discrepa~~cy model, reforming; Scl-roolrestructuring; Special ed tication, inclusive-educatim reform movement in Repessio~~ axlalyses, 8,38,39,4 Regufaticms! federal/ state, 25S254 Reich, Rt?bert, 217 RemediaticTn, 3,1fi--17,18,44,45,47,48, 73,98,100,121,137,160,163,171, 177-1 79

and IQ, 168-1 69 and lack of automat;icity, 186-ItPR and medical model, 230,233 multiple tiers apprc~arzhto), 267, 26&269 resistance to, 261,265268 Repmted reading, 187, 188 Rescl~iy,D, [C., 71 Resc~urcercwms, 213 ReversalS. Sec Letter reversals Repolds, M, C., 244 myming, 140,141 Kccio, C. A,, 75 Kchardson, S, 0,,24 Kchey L,, 244 Right-handedness, 64 Rimes, 91,93,95 &g, J., 18 Rc>bbins,C., 144 Roehler, L. R., 147' Rosenshhe, B,, 147 Rourke, Byron, 111 Rowaxl, B., 203 Rozin, P, 28 Rules (orgaxlizaticnal), 201-202 Russell, R, R., 231 Samuels, SS, [C, 180, 181,187 kaHolding, 128, 138 kandinavia, 27 Srarborough, Ha1lisp5 Sratter, 14748,89 %hcxd failure, 109,235-238,226,257,259 %hoot organizatic>n,197,198-207,218, 269 khoof restructuring, 216215,218, 219(n8) Srhuder, TT., 148 Srhumaker, Jean, 149 SrienGfic mar.lagemer~t,197,198-1 99, 203, %ie~ltificresearch, 252-253,266 E,, "232 . kruggs, 'I %co~tdlanguages. Sec unbfer Language %E-esteem, X, 171,186,241,242,259 %If-teachirlg, 18,19, 128 %man tic processingf 34 Sax diffwenees, Sec under Learning disabigities Share, D, L., 112,128 Shaywitz, S, E. actcl B, A., 89,98 Shepard, L, A,, 230

Siegel, L. S., 163,170,263 Sir?ge1;,H,, 1R7 Smith, M. L., 230 Smith, S. D., 14,115,41 S120wlb1g, M,, 122 Sl-rydel;C.R.R., 182 Social constructi17ism,viir viii-ix, X, 216, 237,246. S6.e also %ciaf system perspective Social identity, 235 Social jus~ce,236238. See also Educational equity Social prottlerns, 171,172 Social system perspective, 8S(table), 8586,98,100,233-235,239,241, 242,281-282. See also Ex-tviro~~meri tal perspective; Orgai~izatic~nal perspective; Social ec>i~sl-rmctivism %~cimco~~omic stahls, 75,76,165 179, 237,257 Stsky, R., 28 Spear-Swerling, L., 100 Special education, 70,72,147', 89,108-l@, 150,1tP8,193,203,204,217;, 218,251, 258,267,268 assumptions of, 194-198,207-214 inclusive-edtrcatiort reform rnovemertt in, 21&215,219(1~17,8) rnjflorities in, 75,219(n4), 234 as no13ra~ona1,197;,209-21 4 teachers' expectations, 259 Speeializatic311, 149,200,201,2(18,213, 215 Speech, 97,113,114 levels of spwch perception. 90-91 temporal wder in, 76 Spelling, 9'10, 10(fig.), 14,18,24,40,95, 125-1 26,142,160,161,164, 167 heritability of, 38-39 Standardizagc>~~, 197,199,201,2fS3,206, 207,214 Startovich, K. E., 112,128,166,178,241, 261,262 Stat&ticalmodet, 195 Stdnmetz, H., 6 7 4 8 Stemberg, R. J., 100 Stevensc>n,H. W., ix, Steve11sc3n, j., 7,352 Stoap cotor-~~3rd test, 183 Storybook re;ldh& 137,138-139 Strauss, A., 227

Subtraction me thodolo~gy,34 Suicides, 172 Sutcliff, J. G., 46 Sweder~,29 Switzerland, 29 Taiwart, ix, 28, See also Chinese language TaZlahassee, Florida, 124 TalJal, F'.# 76 Tatturn, D., 240 Tearzhing repertoires, 200-201,207 Testing, 70,1SO,161,162,185,209, 242-2.i13 interpreting tests, 2%-257 SPCalso f Qs, tests for Thec~ryVS. pract;ice, 200,201,233 ThinEng skills, 148 Thurlow, M,, 231,232,244 Tomography 32. See izlsa Positro~~ emissio~~ tomagrapl-ry Torgcrsen, J, K,, 168 Toth, G., 163 Trainirig studieslpro~grams,1&19,99, 114,285-.281. See also Reading disab2iVI instructionaf in t e n r e ~ ~ t ifor o~~s Tra~sac tionaf strategies instmc tion, 147-149 Treatimertt, See Remediatioi-r Treimar-t,R., 144 Tucker, J ,, 234 Tmmer, W. E., 126 Tutc>rs,128 Twins, 3,4,6--15,37-39,43,2';78 concorctmce rates for, 7-8,37-38 DZ (katernat) m d NXZ (identical), 6,7, 8-9,118-15,37-38 U.S. Office of Education (USOE), 70 U.S. Office of Specid EducaGon Prc?grams, 263 U5XlE. See U.S. Office of Edtrcatiiort Valdez-Me~~chaca, M, C., 139 Var9denherg' S. G., 3'7 Van Metert l?, 148 Venezuela, 27 V~xabuliury,132,124,129,138,139,164, 166,170 Vojir, C. P,, 230 Vygotsky, L, S,, 148

VVadsworfi, S. J., 39 Wechsler 1Q tests, 87, IQR Weisi~er,T,, 257 Weissboutrd, R., 260 Wender Utal~Rating Scale, 163 Wessc~~~, C., 244 Wt-rart~>i~-IWcD~~~~ald, R., 150 White, R. W., 241 Mrkritehurst, G. X., 139 Whole falastrage perspective, 11317, 142-2 43,145,150,151 Wide Range Achietreme~~t Test (WMT), 164 Wise B., 9,10,17,18 Witelsor~,S, E, 67'68 Wolf, Ma~anlze,115 Wc)Iff, I? H., 41 mod, E B,, 34,35 36 Wc)cdcclck Reading Mastery TestRevised (WMT-R), 67Cfig.I Word Attack subset, 120,12(;,127(&g,), 164,250,263

Word recog~zitio~I, ix, 9, 10-11, 10-ll(figs.), 12,13,14, 25,17,18,19, 39,1lt~,112,115,124,161,162,164, 254,255,262,263,266 autamaticity in, 17&188 stages of leanling, 178-1 179 unit of, 181-182 World Federatir>nof Neurology, 228 W M T . See Wide Ra~gcrAchieverne~ftt Test Wri lingf 69,170,72,75,124,125126,160, 161,164,170,180 WMT-R. Sec Wcjodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised Yau, M,, 170 Yeats, Witliarn Butler, 172 YsseXd yke, Xirn, 108,231,232,244 Zerbin-Rudin, E,, 37 Ziegler, S., 170 Zigmond, N., 258