Jump to content

Menu

How to explain dyslexia to a young child?


Recommended Posts

I'm thinking of ways to explain dyslexia to DS.  I explained his dysgraphia (presumed) to him months ago by saying his brain is thinking too quick for his hands so it takes a long time and practice to get his hands fast enough and neat enough to write what his brain wants to say. 

 

He already knows his reading isn't like his peers at PS and did ask one time in a roundabout way.  I had trouble explaining it as I didn't want to presume the diagnosis at the time.  But now I'm needing to really explain in a child friendly (DS is 6) way about his reading.  Even if it is just cursory.  If we start HSing it will help him understand why we will do that too.  He already knows about going to all these doctors to see "how his brain works" and how he learns things so I think I could extend it.  The problem is my knowledge is still limited enough I'm having trouble putting it into kid-friendly phrases.  Maybe it would just be best to use the fact that his brain works in it's own unique way with reading as well?

 

Any suggestions?  Or what NOT to do?  I don't want to start him second guessing himself either by something I say that may be taken the wrong way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the book Dyslexic Advantage at the same time as my DD was going through her official testing. It was a great conversation starter. "Hey DD, I've been reading about people who have reading struggles like you. Listen to this (insert quote about increased 3D skills / story of dyslexic author / other inspiring info). My kid already knew what she was bad at, but by labeling it as dyslexia at the same time as revealing that she isn't alone, others have achieved great things despite dyslexia, and it comes with some inherent advantages, she was able to embrace the label as a badge of honor.

 

Excuse typos - writing on my phone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree wholeheartedly with Plink.  Read that book.  Read it, take notes, ponder a bit then start a discussion or wait til he asked a question and start a discussion, but do it AFTER reading (or listening to) that book.  DD was so down on herself.  After reading that book I had a much better way to present the information and concrete examples of why this is not necessarily an easy journey but that dyslexia also means she is still bright and capable of using some gifts that others may not have.  It helped her understand why she was so good at some things but school was a struggle.  And her dad is dyslexic, a brilliant engineer and a really great pilot.  I could show her a real life person who had many of the MIND strengths discussed in that book and why Daddy also struggled with school.  It also really helped me better understand both of them (and eventually DS, too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anything come particularly easily to him?  Or is he obviously better than his peers at anything?

 

When my son started homeschooling in 2nd grade (because of LD issues) I found that he seemed to be pretty good at math (even though I had to do all of the writing), so I intentionally pushed the math so that he'd be a grade level ahead.  Then I could point to that to say things like, "You know how you are able to learn math quickly?  Well, everyone learns things at different speeds.  And it's taking you a little longer than [insert friend's name or whatever here] to learn how to read."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we do not have official dx.  

 

I have told my son he has to work harder at some things, those are the breaks.  But, I have told him he can do well when he works hard.  

 

I also emphasize non-academic things, like being kind and thoughtful. 

 

I think there are two other things different for us.  One, my younger son and my cousin both have more serious problems, and I have felt a lot of guilt in my life and in my childhood for having an easier time than my cousin.  I do not want my son to feel guilty, so maybe I go too far in that direction.  Two, he responds very well to just doing his best, and he is able to have success this way.  It is not perfectionist success, but he does have the satisfaction of doing his best and being proud of what he has done.  That is very important to me, too.  

 

I have had more talks with him about why he is in speech therapy and OT, when he has been in them.  We have to have discussions about why he needs to do it and other kids do not.  The same when he went to Extended Day Learning last year.  

 

He gets a lot of feedback in his life for being good at things, and for being kind and helpful.  

 

I think it is an accurate assessment though -- for some things he is going to have to work harder than his friends.  

 

My husband is really not comfortable with the word "dyslexia" so I am not sure when I will bring it up.  For his handwriting -- we have a narrative that he has worked very hard, and he has been to OT, and made progress, and now he is doing the best he can, and that is okay, b/c we all know he is doing his best, and it is just handwriting, what he is thinking about matters more than what his handwriting looks like.  I point out when adults do not have good handwriting, too, and how they might be embarrassed sometimes, but it is also really okay.  Everyone has something they are embarrassed about, it is better to own it and be confident, it is a choice.  

 

That is where we are at right now.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing, please don't focus on the weaknesses or let that become an excuse or the definition of who he is.  Focus on how much can be achieved with hard work, careful planning, consistency, willingness to go slow at times, etc.  Focus on strengths and abilities.  Find lots of areas of interest and pursue them.  Make the remediation just a part of the day.  Make homeschooling not something you were forced into because of weaknesses but something wonderfully freeing so that while weaknesses can be solidified strengths can be allowed to shine and flourish.  Glass half full, world looked at through the correct end of the telescope not the side that narrows the focus to just one thing, KWIM?

 

DS internalized from his awful final year at school that his strengths were irrelevant.  His teacher defined him by his weaknesses. So did his father, but would then turn around and tell him to "get over it' and "suck it up" and "just learn to deal with it".  It was a very unhealthy combination of "All you are is a bunch of weaknesses and failures" coupled with "Yeah, you have all these deficits but stop whining about it".  Really awful year.  It has had lasting consequences for our homeschooling, especially since when we first started all I really was doing was focusing on remediation.  It seemed to the kids that all my research, all my conversations with others, all my effort was regarding their deficits, not their strengths.  It was a mistake.  They both have gifts.  Those gifts remained untapped for quite a while.  It affected how they defined themselves and it has taken time to get past that.  DD is in a much better place now.  DS not so much.  Please don't make the same mistake.

 

Best wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just choose a reading program that fits for dyslexia remediation and tell him it is one that is supposed to be good for the way you've now learned (from the testing) his type of brain learns reading best, and that there are a few programs that might fit, so if this one you try first is not right, you will choose another one. (So that he does not feel hopeless or stupid if a supposedly right for his brain program does not work well for him.)

 

The film Journey into Dyslexia is one that he may be too young for, but possibly you could play it for yourself, and he could watch any of it that interests him.  My ds was older.  He watched part, said, okay, I get it, and left to do something more interesting. Came back, watched a bit more, and left again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the reason I asked was so that I could reply to your original question with that information in hand.

 

What I would suggest is that you explain the vision appointment by telling him you're looking for answers as to why he's struggling with reading (and with his penmanship too, for that matter.) Just explain that it's really hard, even for adults, to tell if a person's eyes are working together well, and if they aren't it can cause some serious reading problems, and even other problems, like catching a ball, for example, and that you just want to rule out vision problems as a possible reason why he's finding reading and writing so difficult right now. 

 

If nothing of note is diagnosed, you'll have to tell him that, but I'm reasonably certain that they'll find some vision issues worth addressing. Then you have to decide whether or not to address them, of course.

 

Assuming that you do end up going ahead with their recommendations, which could involve a long course of fairly expensive vision therapy often not covered by insurance, you can then tell him that you think you've finally uncovered one of the reasons he's been having so much trouble, but that both of you have some serious work to do before you'll know (if you have vision therapy in the future.)

 

If all goes well, you'll start to see some improvement in his reading, and his penmanship as well. Of course, you'll at some point have to tell him that his hands have been fast enough all along; it was his vision that was messed up.( If you ask him, you'll probably find that he's spent some time trying to "speed up" his hands.) 

 

What I'm saying here is that you will hopefully be able to offer him an actual physical reason why he's been having trouble, and that the problem can be addressed, and will be addressed, and that he will notice the difference if he puts in the work (and you do also.)

 

You should also warn him, and also many adults who are confused about vision therapy, that vision therapy doesn't actually teach reading. Instead, it prepares one to learn to read, or enables them to more efficiently implement what they've already learned. If you've taught him phonics already, the phonics information will still be there, but now he'll be more able to utilize it. If he resisted phonics instruction, as many vision-challenged children do, you will have to reteach much of it after vision therapy if he's to successfully catch up to his peers. Again, you should explain why you're doing that, i.e., because you've finally fixed his vision issues, and now he'll find it makes a lot more sense. Ditto for handwriting; it will go much easier.

 

There's also the auditory/language side of things. (That's the side that Shaywitz concentrates on--her book's index doesn't even have an entry for "vision therapy" and I doubt it has one for "vision skills," but I don't have a copy handy to check.) In my reading practice, I've found the auditory side almost trivial to correct, especially blending and segmenting, but even phoneme manipulation can be cleared up in a matter of a few sessions with proper exercises. (I can refer you to those exercises later if you're interested.)

 

As for all the brain scan info out there, ask yourself if your brain would have organized itself normally if your eyes weren't functioning properly. The brain is an adaptable organ; it will find workarounds and those workarounds will, in my opinion at least, inevitably show up on a brain scan somehow. We know that those who lose one sense often sharpen others to compensate. That "sharpening" is essentially the building of new synaptic connections in the brain to compensate for those not being used normally due to injury or a failure to develop properly. It seems reasonable to assume that those new connections will show up as unusual activity on a brain scan.

 

I'm not saying that a dyslexia diagnosis is a misdiagnosis, but I am saying that if you fix the vision issues and then ensure that phonics and phonemic skills are in place, you might then find that you're no longer worried about dyslexia, or at least much less worried.

 

Another thing, if things go as I've described above, it wouldn't hurt to inform his teachers as well, because they've already drawn some conclusions about your son's capabilities and, if they haven't already suggested getting a vision evaluation, some of those conclusions might very well be incorrect.

 

Finally, if the above sounds reasonable to you, I'd suggest reading The Vision Piece of the Dyslexia Puzzle on my website. There's a lot more information there. 

 

All the best,

 

Rod Everson

OnTrack Reading

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 In my reading practice, I've found the auditory side almost trivial to correct, especially blending and segmenting, but even phoneme manipulation can be cleared up in a matter of a few sessions with proper exercises. (I can refer you to those exercises later if you're interested.)

 

I'm so glad you've found it that way, because I haven't, lol.  Admittedly the verbal apraxia complicates things immensely.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so glad you've found it that way, because I haven't, lol.  Admittedly the verbal apraxia complicates things immensely.  

 

Yes, I haven't worked with a lot of kids with speech issues. I was referring mainly to the phonemic skills that are supposedly holding so many kids back. I just haven't had that much difficultly teaching them to blend, segment, and manipulate phonemes. Speech issues are another ballpark though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I haven't worked with a lot of kids with speech issues. I was referring mainly to the phonemic skills that are supposedly holding so many kids back. I just haven't had that much difficultly teaching them to blend, segment, and manipulate phonemes. Speech issues are another ballpark though.

Maybe the kids weren't really dyslexic, just untaught by the ps?  I can't really fathom my ds is *that* unusual for a dyslexic.  There are lots of kids with apraxia who are not dyslexic at all.  He can say the sounds just fine.  He just can't segment, blend, or discriminate sounds in positions.  He can identify rhyme a little and sometimes create one of his one.  We've been working on it actively for 2 years now, including with LIPS and Earobics.  We took a break from that and now we're going back at it even harder, hoping to get a breakthrough.

 

Genes.  Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

 

But if you've got a magical exercise I can do that will, in short order, help my ds to do all that, by all means pipe up.  I'd sure hate to spend 4 hours a day for the next 4-6 weeks doing with LIPS what I could have done so easily with your exercises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like OhE, we have found that the phonological ("auditory") portion of dyslexia was anything but trivial to remediate.

 

I'm curious if you're talking a speech issue, or being able to blend, segment, and manipulate phonemes. I was talking about those skills, not speech issues per se, which I don't consider a component of dyslexia. 

 

I have hardly ever worked with a child who couldn't be taught those phonological skills and I work mainly with kids who've struggled with reading, some of whom have been formally labelled dyslexic. 

 

Maybe we're talking about two different things. All I can say is that after a reasonable number of sessions I would get perfect scores on tests of blending, segmenting, and phoneme deletion. Here's the test battery I use, starting with a page describing my notation: Phonics Assessment Tests

 

I bring this up not to cause any sort of ruckus, but because most reading research highlights the importance of these phonemic skills (actually it highlights their absence in struggling readers), while completely ignoring the visual skills. Yet I've found that when the vision skills issues are addressed, kids are usually relatively easy to teach. And even when the vision skills aren't addressed, the curriculum I use seems to achieve the goal of perfecting the three skills tested above. However, perfecting those three skills doesn't necessarily create a competent reader if the vision skills issues remain. 

 

That has led me to wonder whether the reading research isn't overemphasizing the auditory/phonological skills and dramatically underestimating the visual skills. 

 

I would also add that I'm not talking about children just learning to read at age 5 or 6. Most have had at least a year or two of formal reading instruction in school, and sometimes considerably more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the kids weren't really dyslexic, just untaught by the ps?  

 

But if you've got a magical exercise I can do that will, in short order, help my ds to do all that, by all means pipe up. 

 

I've no doubt that many of the kids I've worked with would be considered dyslexic, and some were officially diagnosed as such. As I said, I worked almost exclusively with struggling readers.

 

However, I see that your son is only six. I usually would get kids in 2nd-5th grades, and that might explain some of it.

 

I don't have any "magical exercise" although I think I've helped a lot of children just by informing the parents of the existence of vision therapy. To many of them, VT was pretty much a magical experience given the results that followed.

 

I suspect that the reason I get the results I do is partly due to the age of the children I've worked with. They can all write their letters by that age (although not all that legibly in some cases) and my "exercises" depend upon them saying the sounds aloud as they write them while spelling out a word phonetically. Nearly every child I've worked with has already been taught a fair amount of basic code as well, so they at least understand that "t" stands for the /t/ sound, etc., although many will mix up b/d, etc., and they often don't have a good handle on the short vowel sounds when we start.

 

Incidentally, when I started doing this about 15 years ago I was of the opinion that most struggling readers just had a poor understanding of phonics due to the form of instruction they'd received. While it turned out to be true that they did, indeed, have a poor grasp of phonics generally, I found that the reason was more likely to be that they had undiagnosed vision issues than that they had poor reading instruction. Not in all cases, but probably the majority of them. And I'm not saying that dyslexia is all visual in nature either. I think there's a lot of developmental issues going on, possibly even triggered by things we don't yet understand.

 

One more thing, regarding age of the child. The Scandinavian countries recognize that some children just aren't developmentally ready to tackle reading until age 6 or so, and hold off formal reading instruction until around age 7. Again, that doesn't mean that they don't also have dyslexic children in their populations, but it might explain my results in that I don't see children until age 7 or so. That said, they all learn the three phonological skills I test for, which was why I said what I did about them being easy to teach. At that age, they would learn them. The fact that they can learn them, but often still struggle with reading (even after absorbing a lot of phonics information as well) is what made me question the main direction that reading researchers have taken the past couple of decades. Then learning about the existence of vision therapy and seeing a lot of results of it pretty much convinced me that the research was missing a key component of reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I'd sure hate to spend 4 hours a day for the next 4-6 weeks doing with LIPS what I could have done so easily with your exercises.

 

One more thing. I didn't mean to imply that what I do is done "easily". It is often quite a struggle at first to get a child's attention focused on what I ask them to do. I've often told a parent (who normally sits through every lesson) that I know I only had their child's attention for 40-50% of the session, but to expect better participation as time went on. That usually turns out to be the case.  

 

My sessions are normally 75 minute long though, so a lot is expected. Then the parent mostly repeats the same work at home as homework for review. In other words, by the time I'm getting the test results I do, the child has put in 20 to 30 hours of work and I suspect they wouldn't refer to it as an easy time.

 

My results aren't necessarily gotten easily, but they are gotten consistently. And again, bear in mind that I work with Age 7 and up which might explain a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My daughter has not been diagnosed yet, but I'm certain she is dyslexic. She's nine, in third grade, and has had years of phonics instruction. She has been checked by a COVD and does not need vision therapy. If she could learn phonemes quickly with systematic practice, her problems would have been solved years ago. She has neither undiagnosed vision problems nor insufficient reading instruction.

 

I'm sure you've helped a lot of people, but someone with true dyslexia is unlikely to get an easy fix. My daughter has not been "relatively easy to teach." I'm sure your comments are well meaning, but they don't represent what my experience has been so far with my child.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I bring this up not to cause any sort of ruckus, but because most reading research highlights the importance of these phonemic skills (actually it highlights their absence in struggling readers), while completely ignoring the visual skills. Yet I've found that when the vision skills issues are addressed, kids are usually relatively easy to teach. And even when the vision skills aren't addressed, the curriculum I use seems to achieve the goal of perfecting the three skills tested above. However, perfecting those three skills doesn't necessarily create a competent reader if the vision skills issues remain. 

 

That has led me to wonder whether the reading research isn't overemphasizing the auditory/phonological skills and dramatically underestimating the visual skills. 

 

I would also add that I'm not talking about children just learning to read at age 5 or 6. Most have had at least a year or two of formal reading instruction in school, and sometimes considerably more. 

Ok, I'll engage with you on this one.   :)  It *does* sound like a strong percentage of your clients have ADHD and yes they'd respond well to that methodology.  You also have a self-selecting client base, where the more severe cases of actual dyslexia are *probably* being counseled to get actual OG from a certified OG tutor, since OG is the only intervention consistently effective for dyslexia.  You also have a client group that by definition does not have dysgraphia, since you're having them write their way into reading.  

 

In other words, it sounds like you're very similar to SWR, WRTR, and whatnot, which I used with my dd very successfully.  I agree, with that methodology and VT you can solve a LOT of reading problems!!  

 

So then fast forward to my own situation.  I don't have the luxury of wondering what would happen if I waited around till 8 or 9 or whatever, and I'm not willing to turn it into some crap shoot and GUESS.  I already have a psych who specializes in dyslexia saying his experience with true, diagnosed dyslexia is that dyslexia left on it's own, even in the wonders of something as developmentally sensitive and nurturing as a Montessori, does NOT get better.  It doesn't go away, get outgrown, or any such thing.  

 

See, when I did SWR years ago with my dd (for whom it worked very well!), I bought into Sanseri's line that dyslexia was all our fault, that if we taught the way she said our kids would never be dyslexic.  WHAT A HOOT!!  Now we have MRI evidence and know the dyslexia is in the same Broca's area as the articulation problem.  Genetic, written in stone, not my fault, not how I taught him.  Waiting makes no difference, cuz it's genes, no wiring to get things moving.  And like Storygirl, I've had my ds to the COVD doc and got him cleared.  NO developmental vision problems.  Tracking, convergence, everything checks.  My dd without dyslexia needed VT, but my ds with dyslexia ds NOT.  At least as of his last appt that was the case.  

 

So could stronger visual processing MAKE UP FOR dyslexia and a lack of phonemic awareness?  ABSOLUTELY.  Isn't that the most obvious explanation of hyperlexia, that the dc's high IQ and strong visual skills allowed them to process and work around their phonological gaps?  I know someone whose dc did this.  Extremely poor phonological processing, extremely strong reader.  But my ds doesn't have as high an IQ as that dc and hasn't become hyperlexic.  I can't take what worked out for one random, unusual case and assume it's going to work for mine.

 

I was also suggesting to a friend backchannel that one reasonable explanation of why reading clicks later for some of these kids *might* be that their working memory is finally high enough.  Think with me here.  I've already posited that a fair chunk of the kids you work with have ADHD, given your comments.  Many dyslexics will also get an ADHD label.  So either way, you have kids with working memory deficits.  Even untreated, the working memory will continue to progress in that population, so by default at some point it's going to get high enough that the dc can hold thoughts in his head, pull them together, and learn to read.

 

I can't even BEGIN to traditional SWR/WRTR/what it sounds like you do, because my ds doesn't have enough working memory.  I've tried and tried.  Actually I've tried to work on working memory too, sigh.  I'm going to try again some fresh new ways.  

 

I'm beginning to think that late readers are actually showing that their EF is finally there.  EF is something we CAN work on and get to budge (in theory, sigh), which to me means that kids who read late *could* read earlier with effective interventions.  Our psych doesn't buy into the idea of it being developmental and that lateness is unavoidable AT ALL.  He wants us back in the spring and he expects to see ds reading.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, after all this chewing on Rod (which I don't really mean to do but the dream of something magical that could make this all go away is just too enticing!), I'm here reading the BalavisX manual (Bill Hubert) trying to formulate our plan for the next few weeks, and WHAT DO I SEE...  This juicy tidbit:  Golden Rule #2: The auditory component is key and must provide the foundation of every exercise...The auditory component "breaks the grip" of dyslexia...

 

Now isn't that interesting!  Our OT did some of this with ds and it was really fascinating to watch.  I videotaped it, but you can also find videos on the BalavisX website.  The put a lot of stock in the idea that *each thing* in the process should be done *just so*.  So you catch and squeeze, not just catching any old way.  You do it in a rhthym.  You this and that.  Fascinating.  

 

So dude, if BalavisX would merge auditory and rhythm (EF) in the brain and get something going there, I'm all for it!  Maybe Rod's magic cure does exist, just not the way he thought?  We can all wish.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OhE -- from what I know about Balavisx (and we happen to live 2 hours from Wichita so it is a thing here!) it is more about connecting the two hemispheres, and making it easier for them to communicate, and I think that is helpful and worth doing.

 

I think that for it to "break the grip" or dyslexia just sounds like it is a ridiculous statement.  I roll my eyes at it.  I would not get too attached to thinking Balavisx is going to *teach any direct reading skills* in a way that I think kids need to be taught.  

 

But I also think it can help.  

 

I think it is more to help concentration, and help make it *easier to learn*.  

 

Also -- here, I asked this question directly to someone big on Balavisx but not an employee.  "Is this something that leads to permanent results?"  The person answered me -- "no."  The person answered me -- it is something where you want to keep doing it, and where when the child has done it in the morning or prior to a certain subject, they seem like they have an easier time concentrating and picking stuff up, after doing Balavisx compared to not having done Balavisx.  Like -- for some/many kids, they do Balavisx, and then you skip a day, and they are a little back to not doing as well (like academic teachers/tutors saying they can see a difference).  

 

The person did say there are kids who seem to make permanent gains to where they do not think "this kids needs to do Balavisx" in the same way.  BUT that is not the goal/purpose of doing Balavisx, b/c they don't plan/expect that to happen, they don't consider Balavisx a failure or useless if that does not happen.  But I think it is nice when it does happen.  

 

In some ways it is more like an accommodation than a remediation.  I think it is *also* a remediation -- depending on what the issues are.  

 

Where it could, in theory, have been a remediation for my son with crossing-the-midline -------- yes, he did some Balavisx to work on that, and his crossing-the-midline is permanently improved ------- but it is more that he "did OT" for that and the OT chose to use some Balavisx.  

 

My son needed to do everything with bean bags for Balavisx and I doubt that even now he could do anything with the rubber balls.  Here locally -- "doing Balavisx" means doing the classroom curriculum with the rubber balls.  When you are doing the modified version with bean bags like my son did, then it is still Balavisx, but it is not the same thing going on as when people are doing the rubber balls.  It is partly the same, and partly different.  

 

B/c the kids who can do the rubber balls pretty easily and then it really helps their concentration ------- that is something Balavisx is good for ------ but anything written from that angle is not going to apply to my son, b/c he is not in that category.  He does not have ADHD so Balavisx is not alleviating ADHD symptoms prior to him working on schoolwork.  Nothing about Balavisx that is addressing that angle particularly applies to my son.  

 

Anyway -- it is good, it is respected here, but some of the results that some kids get I was told ----- those are not universal reports.  Or, those kids do not have the same problems as my son, so it is not targeting the same areas.  

 

To a little extent ---- they like it for the kids with the coordination issues (my son is more this way), they think it is good, it is helping coordination in a OT/remediating/permanent skill increase kind of way.  

 

Then they like it for kids with attention issues.  They do think it permanently improves concentration ---- but not really on any kind of timeline where you can say "within x months you will see x improvement in concentration as measured by x" b/c it is not like that.  But -- they do think that over a longer time, it does help.  But -- they want kids to keep it up even into college and being adults.  It is something where it is also recommended for adults to help their minds not wander, to help improve concentration.  It is not only for kids here, it is presented to some extent as something you will want to use your whole life at certain times.  

 

But really -- "breaks the grip" of dyslexia I think just sounds like a pretty vapid statement, personally.  I think that translates to -- it is going to make it easier for kids to get their thinking going, and their concentration, across the hemispheres, so they can be ready to have a good session of reading.  And if they happen to have a harder time in this area -- it will help them in a dramatic way.  It does not mean -- oh, they don't need speech therapy anymore, or OT, or reading instruction.  It is a tool in the arsenal for OTs, SLPs, and special ed teachers, and classroom teachers.  It is not like -- do this, and there will be no problems.  

 

I think the modified exercises with bean bags are good too, though, and have a good reputation here.  But that is the use of it for my sons.  For my older son I think it helped him but also stays at that kind-of hard, non-automatic level.  He does not do the zen rubber ball thing, that seems like it is so good for ADHD and school work.  But -- if you are doing special needs modifications, then I was told, you do just see how kids do, but they are not expecting kids who start with special needs modifications and coordination difficulties, to get to the zen rubber ball level, it is not the way it works most of the time.  The kids who are going far with the rubber balls are supposed to keep moving up and challenging themselves, too, though.  

 

I had a misconception a bit, like if you just do the program you will keep advancing through it.  But they do not expect that for everyone.  Or really -- you can make it more and more challenging with bean bags, but not necessarily move on to rubber balls.  It is more of a working-on-your-own-level kind of thing than an advancing-through-the-levels kind of thing for my older son at least, my younger son is more coordinated.  But I don't think my older son is ever going to be able to do the "this is what you expect kids this age to be working on" level.  Or, maybe I could take him to a better vision therapist than is available locally.  I don't know.  I also think -- maybe down the road my son will be able to do more with the rubber balls.  It is not that he can't make progress, it is just, he is not on the usual developmental track on this, and Balavisx is not meant to put him on the usual track, it is just meant for him to make progress on his own track.  But I so wish it was something to put him on the usual track.  But that is just my wishful thinking, not what anyone else thinks is a reasonable goal/expectation.  

 

So to some extent -- you might ask your OT, and you might not want to watch too any of the videos with the rubber balls, if your son might be using bean bags for a while.  If he is doing the program with few or no modifications -- that is great, too.  I have really heard it helps kids to concentrate and have an easier time with learning, then.  I think it works that way when the modifications are used, too, but I don't think it is quite the same.  

 

Edit:  What I really mean -- for my sons, they are in the category that is more "this is good, this will help them improve in some things that are very, very hard for them."  But ---- they are not in the category of kids where this is that one thing, that was missing, and then they just shoot up.  There is a big difference between seeing a demonstration with the balls, and then what my kids do for Balavisx.  It is just the way it is.  I feel like half, get your hopes up because it is a good quality program.  But then, half, but don't expect it to do things it may not do with your own kids.  It is not going to "unlock dyslexia" for very many kids.  I think that is just -- not something to hope for too much.  I don't think that takes away from the program, but ask what are reasonable expectations for your son or what is typically seen with kids with your son's profile.  You will also see how it goes as he is doing it more!  And -- I do think my sons benefit so much!  It is just not a miracle cure.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lecka, I'm going to have to look at the manual some more.  I have it here, and you're right the guy IS very full of himself and his ideas and exclamation points!  And really, you've asked a lot of good questions.  This OT does it as part of her mix and she's working with the theory that midline work and sensory integration work get the brain ready to learn.  I hadn't heard the discussion of attention.  In her mind she's trying to target rhythm (which is part of EF) and visual tracking across the midline.  You're right that, where he started off really zip zoom, he calmed down and got into a peaceful place and started working with her rhythm.  Since I've had a terrible time getting him able to do something as simple as slow down and clap with me to the alphabet, that kind of work seems useful.  I can't even do metronome work with him because he can't slow down and clap to a beat.  So ANYTHING where he's doing some kind of motion to a beat is useful right now.

 

You know that's a good question about whether they're creating an *effect* (mood change, more peaceful, more focused) or whether they're rewiring the brain for anything.  My goal is always brain wiring, not just "effect," and brain wiring is permanent.  In that sense it probably is similar to what people find with Brain Gym when they say it doesn't stick.  And yet I'm not sure that meant it couldn't have any brain wiring results if the child NEEDS the brain wiring skill it's going for.  

 

I *think* with his comment about it unlocking dyslexia, what he's talking about is really nuanced.  Dyslexia is phonological processing, an auditory processing issue.  So with properly implemented BalavisX they make this big to do over the *sound* and proper rhythm.  You're supposed to be very quiet and hear the *slap* of the beanbags in the rhythm.  So that idea of getting the brain to attend to sounds and rhythm I think is what he's referring to.  Whether it WORKS, I can't say, lol.  Just saying that's what the OT harped on, and she's gone three of their training sessions.  Apparently she finds it really useful.

 

That's a shame they were making you feel less than for using the bags!!!  In the manual it's not that way AT ALL.  He has EVERYONE start with bags.  Apparently the dvd set has a different order, but for the manual you're supposed to go: partner bags, partner balls, individual bags, individual balls, group.  I think it's more of a difficulty thing.  There's never any mention that bags are for people who aren't able to do balls.  Looking at the ball exercises, they're more complex.

 

Oh, the other thing the OT wanted it for was to *track* with the eyes across the midline.  So you're supposed to follow the bags with your eyes and track.  Since we do seem to have some midline issues, and since the language issues supposedly improve as you work on the corpus collosum, I figure we can't go wrong.  

 

So I guess it depends on what you were trying to get to happen as to whether it's permanent?  I mean, how else do you explain that some OTs say BrainGym is not permanent and worthless and then other people like SandyKC say they were doing it and got radical jumps?  I think anything like midline issues that you work on and get progress on would stick.  I see no reason for that to go away.  I think if you DID IT ENOUGH you'd probably even get some bump in EF function as a result of the rhythm work.  But the more vague stuff like attention overall, focus, blah blah, yeah I don't see how those could stick.

 

Well whatever it can do, I guess it's gonna do.  I've been fiddling with a schedule/plan for us.  I read on the LDOnline forum about people getting breakthroughs doing LIPS at a LMB center 4 hours a day for 4-6 weeks.  I'm trying to make a plan for us where we can do LIPS intensively like that, using bodywork for the breaks, to see if we can get some breakthroughs.  So if we do some of these things 5-10 minutes a day, 4 times a day, for 4-6 weeks, whatever it CAN do for us may become evident.  And since it's relaxing and pleasant, it's no skin off my hide if the things DON'T turn out to be some miracle cure.

 

So yeah, I didn't take that "break the grip of dyslexia" too far, lol.  I just figured it meant get something moving in the brain so it could start noticing sounds better which might then lead to hearing the sounds in words better.  But I could be all wet on that, might not be what he meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My daughter has not been diagnosed yet, but I'm certain she is dyslexic. She's nine, in third grade, and has had years of phonics instruction. She has been checked by a COVD and does not need vision therapy. If she could learn phonemes quickly with systematic practice, her problems would have been solved years ago. She has neither undiagnosed vision problems nor insufficient reading instruction.

 

I'm sure you've helped a lot of people, but someone with true dyslexia is unlikely to get an easy fix. My daughter has not been "relatively easy to teach." I'm sure your comments are well meaning, but they don't represent what my experience has been so far with my child.

 

Yes, I have helped a lot of children, and also vision therapy is not an "easy fix." Many of the kids I've worked with have been anything but "relatively easy to teach." And, yes, my comments are well meaning. After all, many parents have children who struggle learning to read and, in my opinion, a large portion of them would see their concerns addressed with a combination of vision therapy and good phonics instruction. Not all of them obviously, but a large portion of them. That's been my experience, anyway.

 

All I've been trying to say is that for the vast majority of struggling readers I've seen (I've worked with nearly 200 now, one on one) the phonemic issues have been relatively easy to fix. That doesn't mean that working with the child was easy; it often is a real struggle at first. In nearly all cases, however, they tested 100% after a time on the tests I cited earlier. 

 

I also realize there are degrees of "dyslexia," to the point where a lot of kids considered dyslexic by teachers probably aren't even dyslexic; they're just clueless about phonics because no one has taught it to them. On the other end of the spectrum are kids who really, really, struggle. As with the autism spectrum, the degree of reading struggles varies across a wide spectrum. Dyslexia is a fuzzy term. You're defining "true dyslexia" as someone who can't be helped by vision therapy and phonics instruction, at all apparently. Most people, however, refer to dyslexia as a problem learning to read without specifying any particular cause. I've found that the causes vary and often include vision issues and/or phonological issues, but I realize some children's issues go beyond that and I certainly don't claim to be able to teach every child to read.

 

With the kids I work with, even after the vision issues are addressed, and the child tests 100% on the phonological issues I test, some still obviously have more going on that's getting in the way of both fluency and comprehension. I haven't claimed otherwise, and I hope you eventually find the best way to help your own child succeed in learning to read. 

 

Also, I apologize for my use of the word "trivial" in this thread. It was a poor choice of words to make the point I was trying to make which was that the vision issues have been more difficult to address than the phonological issues where both are present, yet so much attention is paid to the latter, and very little to the former. I've found this forum to be exceptional for recognizing the existence of vision issues. As I think I said earlier in this thread, Shaywitz, for example, doesn't even discuss them in the context of dyslexia which I feel is a significant, and unfortunate, omission in her book, especially when considering how often people are referred to it for answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll engage with you on this one.   :)  It *does* sound like a strong percentage of your clients have ADHD and yes they'd respond well to that methodology.  You also have a self-selecting client base, where the more severe cases of actual dyslexia are *probably* being counseled to get actual OG from a certified OG tutor, since OG is the only intervention consistently effective for dyslexia.  You also have a client group that by definition does not have dysgraphia, since you're having them write their way into reading.  

 

In other words, it sounds like you're very similar to SWR, WRTR, and whatnot, which I used with my dd very successfully.  I agree, with that methodology and VT you can solve a LOT of reading problems!!  

 

So then fast forward to my own situation.  I don't have the luxury of wondering what would happen if I waited around till 8 or 9 or whatever, and I'm not willing to turn it into some crap shoot and GUESS.  I already have a psych who specializes in dyslexia saying his experience with true, diagnosed dyslexia is that dyslexia left on it's own, even in the wonders of something as developmentally sensitive and nurturing as a Montessori, does NOT get better.  It doesn't go away, get outgrown, or any such thing.  

 

See, when I did SWR years ago with my dd (for whom it worked very well!), I bought into Sanseri's line that dyslexia was all our fault, that if we taught the way she said our kids would never be dyslexic.  WHAT A HOOT!!  Now we have MRI evidence and know the dyslexia is in the same Broca's area as the articulation problem.  Genetic, written in stone, not my fault, not how I taught him.  Waiting makes no difference, cuz it's genes, no wiring to get things moving.  And like Storygirl, I've had my ds to the COVD doc and got him cleared.  NO developmental vision problems.  Tracking, convergence, everything checks.  My dd without dyslexia needed VT, but my ds with dyslexia ds NOT.  At least as of his last appt that was the case.  

 

 

 

First, I don't think I've told  you nearly enough about my client base to enable you to make any accurate generalizations about them. ADHD is another one of those diagnoses that is very "fuzzy" because it's made on the basis of subjective observations of behavior. Developmental optometrists often show parents how much the symptoms of ADHD (which is essentially a list of symptoms without a known cause) overlap with the symptoms of vision skills problems (which are observable by objective testing.) So are my clients demonstrating ADHD symptoms, or symptoms of vision skills problems? Based on my experience, it's as likely to be the vision skills as it is to be some ill-defined issue that causes ADHD. Again though, I'm not saying that ADHD is all about vision problems. I'm talking about the huge overlap of symptoms that obviously exists between the two conditions.

 

Second, if you saw the handwriting of a fair percentage of my clients, especially among those who never had vision therapy, you'd question your assumption that they don't demonstrate dysgraphia, i.e., poor handwriting and spelling. (It goes without saying that they also have trouble expressing themselves in writing.) But what's the cause? And why does handwriting so often improve following vision therapy? (Not always, but often.)

 

As far as my not seeing those who've already been sent off to OG tutors, you seem to assume that my curriculum is inferior to an OG curriculum.  In fact, it's based on a combination of Spalding and Phono-Graphix, which are both very much phoneme-based curricula. Because I do remediation, rather than initial instruction my approach is faster whereas Spalding is much more comprehensive in terms of teaching writing skills and spelling. However, I'm reasonably certain that the multisyllable approach I use is at least as effective as Spalding's when it comes to enabling a child to decode unfamiliar words. I mention Spalding because Ms. Spalding was quite dedicated to Orton-Gillingham's approach and based her method on much of that work.

 

When it comes to your own child's situation and your description of what you face, and have faced, I agree with you. Dyslexia isn't a teaching problem, and it isn't likely to just go away with maturity although, as you say, with maturity your child's working memory could increase to the point where instruction becomes easier to internalize. Regarding your child's vision, if he's only six now it's possible that he was difficult to diagnose when you had him seen? (Now here I'm the one making assumptions, I'll admit, but I know the very young are harder to assess because of the nature of the testing.) Unless the testing was quite recent, maybe it would be worth having him reassessed again at some point, especially if you notice symptoms of visual stress when he's reading, or confusion that could be explained by poor depth perception. I suspect you're well aware of that though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Rod's magic cure does exist, just not the way he thought?  We can all wish.   :D

 

If you continue in this vein, we're done talking, just so you know. No where have I asserted anything remotely resembling a "magic cure" and I don't understand your fascination with saying that I have done so. 

 

So, enough already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

First, I don't think I've told  you nearly enough about my client base to enable you to make any accurate generalizations about them. ADHD is another one of those diagnoses that is very "fuzzy" because it's made on the basis of subjective observations of behavior. Developmental optometrists often show parents how much the symptoms of ADHD (which is essentially a list of symptoms without a known cause) overlap with the symptoms of vision skills problems (which are observable by objective testing.) So are my clients demonstrating ADHD symptoms, or symptoms of vision skills problems? Based on my experience, it's as likely to be the vision skills as it is to be some ill-defined issue that causes ADHD. Again though, I'm not saying that ADHD is all about vision problems. I'm talking about the huge overlap of symptoms that obviously exists between the two conditions.

 

Second, if you saw the handwriting of a fair percentage of my clients, especially among those who never had vision therapy, you'd question your assumption that they don't demonstrate dysgraphia, i.e., poor handwriting and spelling. (It goes without saying that they also have trouble expressing themselves in writing.) But what's the cause? And why does handwriting so often improve following vision therapy? (Not always, but often.)

 

As far as my not seeing those who've already been sent off to OG tutors, you seem to assume that my curriculum is inferior to an OG curriculum.  In fact, it's based on a combination of Spalding and Phono-Graphix, which are both very much phoneme-based curricula. Because I do remediation, rather than initial instruction my approach is faster whereas Spalding is much more comprehensive in terms of teaching writing skills and spelling. However, I'm reasonably certain that the multisyllable approach I use is at least as effective as Spalding's when it comes to enabling a child to decode unfamiliar words. I mention Spalding because Ms. Spalding was quite dedicated to Orton-Gillingham's approach and based her method on much of that work.

 

When it comes to your own child's situation and your description of what you face, and have faced, I agree with you. Dyslexia isn't a teaching problem, and it isn't likely to just go away with maturity although, as you say, with maturity your child's working memory could increase to the point where instruction becomes easier to internalize. Regarding your child's vision, if he's only six now it's possible that he was difficult to diagnose when you had him seen? (Now here I'm the one making assumptions, I'll admit, but I know the very young are harder to assess because of the nature of the testing.) Unless the testing was quite recent, maybe it would be worth having him reassessed again at some point, especially if you notice symptoms of visual stress when he's reading, or confusion that could be explained by poor depth perception. I suspect you're well aware of that though.

 

Turns out Kenneth Lane's book on vision therapy has a whole chapter on working memory, both visual and linguistic, as the underpinning of reading problems, so maybe there is something to that idea of tying together working memory and the later reading success?  I was trying to sort out what *kind* of working memory work would get carryover to ability to learn to read.  He includes exercises for BOTH in his VT book, so that's interesting.  

 

Yes, my dd's handwriting was a sight before VT.  Dramatic change with VT.  No dysgraphia diagnosis even though her motor control is not automatic, which the Eides say should get you the label.  I think many parents who've done VT and then had their dc not get labels wonder whether other kids would still get those labels if they had VT.  I really don't know, only know my own case with my own dc. We have other people on the board who've done VT and still gotten a dysgraphia label, so it's clearly not the only factor.

 

Oh, my dd got her ADHD label *after* VT.  It's not vague and it's not based on behavioral forms, at least not with a good psych.  They run the TOVA, and even though that's considered controversial in some circles I've seen two psychs now, both well-respected, who use it pretty definitively.  I purposely filled out her behavioral form as LIGHTLY as possible, and she still got the label.  The psych put something in the report about the mom not reporting difficulties, hahaha...  And in the studies I've been reading on neurofeedback (fascinating stuff!), they're using TOVAs before and after to track progress.  

 

But yes, her attention symptoms are *worse* when she doesn't use her bifocal contacts for close-up work.  Doesn't change her overall (the fidgeting, the Mary Poppins days, the low processing speed, etc.), but it definitely pushes her over the edge and makes it hard to get work done.  

 

 

Yes, I have helped a lot of children, and also vision therapy is not an "easy fix." Many of the kids I've worked with have been anything but "relatively easy to teach." And, yes, my comments are well meaning. After all, many parents have children who struggle learning to read and, in my opinion, a large portion of them would see their concerns addressed with a combination of vision therapy and good phonics instruction. Not all of them obviously, but a large portion of them. That's been my experience, anyway.

 

All I've been trying to say is that for the vast majority of struggling readers I've seen (I've worked with nearly 200 now, one on one) the phonemic issues have been relatively easy to fix. That doesn't mean that working with the child was easy; it often is a real struggle at first. In nearly all cases, however, they tested 100% after a time on the tests I cited earlier. 

 

I also realize there are degrees of "dyslexia," to the point where a lot of kids considered dyslexic by teachers probably aren't even dyslexic; they're just clueless about phonics because no one has taught it to them. On the other end of the spectrum are kids who really, really, struggle. As with the autism spectrum, the degree of reading struggles varies across a wide spectrum. Dyslexia is a fuzzy term. You're defining "true dyslexia" as someone who can't be helped by vision therapy and phonics instruction, at all apparently. Most people, however, refer to dyslexia as a problem learning to read without specifying any particular cause. I've found that the causes vary and often include vision issues and/or phonological issues, but I realize some children's issues go beyond that and I certainly don't claim to be able to teach every child to read.

 

With the kids I work with, even after the vision issues are addressed, and the child tests 100% on the phonological issues I test, some still obviously have more going on that's getting in the way of both fluency and comprehension. I haven't claimed otherwise, and I hope you eventually find the best way to help your own child succeed in learning to read. 

 

Also, I apologize for my use of the word "trivial" in this thread. It was a poor choice of words to make the point I was trying to make which was that the vision issues have been more difficult to address than the phonological issues where both are present, yet so much attention is paid to the latter, and very little to the former. I've found this forum to be exceptional for recognizing the existence of vision issues. As I think I said earlier in this thread, Shaywitz, for example, doesn't even discuss them in the context of dyslexia which I feel is a significant, and unfortunate, omission in her book, especially when considering how often people are referred to it for answers.

 

I think you inadvertently rubbed the wrong way some women who are working really hard to help their kids.  I said magical mainly because if there WAS something I could do that would make things go better, it would *be* miraculous in my book and very welcome.  Like if it's the way you drill or use manipulatives or something, hand over your secret!  I didn't mean to offend you.  :)

 

The reason people are sticking to phonological for the dyslexia is because that's where the DSM is.  Since we already agree on the issues with vision affecting reading, I'll go farther.  Are you saying you think vision issues CAUSE the phonological processing deficits in some kids by holding back connections they would make or something?  Currently you can't get a reading disorder label without phonological deficits.  On my ds the phonological issues have been obvious for some time.  They're now diagnosing dyslexia as young as 5.5, now that they have CTOPP tests for younger kids.  There's a big move right now to diagnose younger, intervene younger. It's actually really frustrating, because we now have the *ability* to identify but don't have intervention materials targeted to these younger kids.  They're all targeted to older kids because it used to be you had to wait.  Our psych says waiting changes nothing, that he'll be just as dyslexic at 8 or 9 without intervention as he is now.

 

And yes, he has been tested annually by a COVD doc since he was 3.  So he had it at 3,4,5 and will again at 6 and on.  It's DEFINITELY on my radar. Vision just doesn't explain his phonological processing issues.  Now if you had a dc doing VT and the VT worked on different kinds of working memory (linguistic and visual-spatial, per Kenneth Lane) and you followed the VT doc's advice and began some OG-family tutoring, you'd *probably* see a turnaround in a huge chunk of kids, yes.  But that's not specifically the dyslexic population but more the why isn't reading working population.  Those same kids had age-typical phonological processing at age 5/6 and COULD have learned to read well if they had been TAUGHT.  That's not the same as "I've used all the right things and it's still a slog and I'm pulling my hair out cuz he can't hear it".  Just not the same.  And I've had both kinds of kids now.  

 

Btw, both S'cool Moves and Kenneth Lane include exercises with arrow reading, etc. to work on directionality and fluency.  I think/assume/suspect that working on those the way they describe will in fact bump fluency and RAN/RAS scores.  I made some sheets with colored circles, copying what S'cool Moves sells, and I plan to try them on my ds as part of our mix.  S'cool Moves includes in their book more sophisticated rapid naming sheets, so I've been trying to think about how to ramp those up or make them progress in challenge.  But you've probably already thought about that.  I've always assumed the flashcard work, drilling words to automaticity, was aimed at improving fluency and RAN/RAS.  It's part of what we were doing when my dd's reading took off, definitely.  I hadn't really thought about doing it with letters and symbols and someone not yet reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ADHD symptoms also highly overlap with giftedness.

 

As well as dyslexiaĂ¢â‚¬Â¦  Both have executive function issues that are very similar.  So if you're blessed to have a gifted kid with dyslexia and/or ADHD--who knows which issue might be causing which "symptom" today.   :rolleyes:  (/personal rant lol)

 

 

 

Displace, I know you're full of questions and I'm so glad you're asking them when your kiddo is this young!  So often I think I almost missed the boat with mine because I didn't give him labels to hang his hat on when he was younger.  

 

Personally, I think the best thing his dad and I have done for Buck's dyslexia is teach him to laugh about it.  This is something he is going to struggle with for the rest of his life.  And there's nothing he can do about it.  

I'm fond of telling the story of his getting a 7% on his spelling sub-test on last spring's Stanford (and that he was so happy that he spells better than 6 kids out of 100, which means he's not nearly as bad as he thought), because it perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about.  He doesn't take it seriously.

It's not a character flaw.

He spent YEARS getting 20%s on his spelling tests and not understanding what was wrong with him.  He just told me last week, actually, that his 5th grade teacher once sat him down after a really bad one and said, "Buck sweety, your spelling just really stinks."  He said she chuckled as she said it, so obviously she understood that it wasn't an effort issue.   Can you imagine the hits he took from the couple of teachers he'd had who thought it WAS an effort issue, though?  I feel such Mom-guilt over that...

 

 

So yeah, that's my advice:  

1.  Start using the label early so he has something to pin the blame on, as well as credit the positives!

2.  You have to remediate as much as possible, as long as possible (at almost 15, mine is currently reading The Hunger Games.  For FUN!! And his spelling isĂ¢â‚¬Â¦well, it's a work in progress.)  

3.  Teach him to disconnect the dyslexia from intelligence.  YOU know it has nothing to do with intelligence, but if you spend all this time working on this issue, he's not going to necessarily believe you if you just say it.  It has to become something he can just laugh off.

4.  Get accommodations going as early as possible.  Spell-check, organization apps and alarms, typing, audio books, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking of ways to explain dyslexia to DS. I explained his dysgraphia (presumed) to him months ago by saying his brain is thinking too quick for his hands so it takes a long time and practice to get his hands fast enough and neat enough to write what his brain wants to say.

 

He already knows his reading isn't like his peers at PS and did ask one time in a roundabout way. I had trouble explaining it as I didn't want to presume the diagnosis at the time. But now I'm needing to really explain in a child friendly (DS is 6) way about his reading. Even if it is just cursory. If we start HSing it will help him understand why we will do that too. He already knows about going to all these doctors to see "how his brain works" and how he learns things so I think I could extend it. The problem is my knowledge is still limited enough I'm having trouble putting it into kid-friendly phrases. Maybe it would just be best to use the fact that his brain works in it's own unique way with reading as well?

 

Any suggestions? Or what NOT to do? I don't want to start him second guessing himself either by something I say that may be taken the wrong way.

I'm side stepping the issues discussed so far and heading back to the OP.

 

At the beginning of the school year and with new students, the local dyslexia school spends a large amount of time completing a brain unit study with their students. I believe Ellen McHenry has a brain study unit. Anyhoo..

 

Dyslexia is organic and is verifiable with MRI. Dyslexia has been studied for years now, and there are many effective therapies to re-mediate it. Dyslexia has nothing to do with overall intelligence.

 

Pretty much, this is the angle that I took with DS. If he is bothered by dyslexia, I cannot tell. The dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and overall clumsiness bother DS most of all, but as Erin as mentioned, it helps somewhat to have a twisted sense of humor. :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooo, I love that idea to do a brain study!  Mercifully ds has NO CLUE how he compares to his peers.  We're working pretty hard now (4 sessions of LIPS a day, lots of OT stuff, etc.) that is eating up his life and takes a lot of hours total.  He's bearing up under it pretty well, but we're so early in it he hasn't figured out what his peers do/don't do.  He's socially immature, so I'm hoping it STAYS that way, at least a while, sigh.  

 

The one thing I did do, after I realized we were about to get into a pickle, was I told him the stuff he hates is "Ears" work and everything we like is school.  He has liked school since he was 3, and I see no reason to ruin that just because he happens to be dyslexic.  So I'm separating them out and keeping the enemy plain.  I tell him to get his Ears work done so we have time for our school work.  Oh yeah, psychology.   :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my Timberly, the discrimination your ds has experienced makes me want to cry!  That's horrible.  And frankly, with that mess at the post office I would have gone in later and complained to the head.  That's just outrageous to EMBARRASS A CUSTOMER.  What did it MATTER if the clerk didn't like his signature???  They should have had a customer-friendly policy on that.  The clerk wasn't trained properly and the manager should be told.  

 

Wow, to have to quite swim team, sigh.  Some meets are so frequent, that might have been hard to keep up with.  They wouldn't even let him have a HELPER to get to the right block???

 

I love how comfortable your ds is using his audiobooks as literature.  Very inspiring.  And you're right, at this age my dd was reading her Bible every day.  It was an NIrV (NIV easy reading version on maybe a 3rd grade reading level).  Ds is a fuzz immature for that still.  He listens to the Your Story Hour Bible stories.  Maybe in another year or so he'll be ready.  

 

Tell your ds we think he's great!  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DS11 does TOG using audio books and no written work. He loves it. The coop wasn't a TOG coop.

 

This is brilliant!! 

 

So where are you getting the audio for the books?  Are you using Learning Ally?  I was just looking at it today.  Right now I'm just using Audible on the Kindle.  Learning Ally would actually be cheaper for us, but I'm not sure about the quality of the recordings?  Any thoughts?  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am late getting back to this.

 

For Balavisx, nobody presented bean bags to me as "less than."  I filled that in myself.  I know what the usual age levels are, kind-of, in a vague way.....  For my older son's age -- kids are in rubber balls, or they are in modified.  That is just how it seems to work out.  I don't think that is Balavisx, exactly, it is just what I know the average level is, I guess.  I also had an impression, I think a lot of people would have, that Balavisx = rubber balls.  I was not happy to be told my son would be doing modified, I just did not want to hear that.    

 

For the 4-6 weeks thing for Lips.  When I looked into this -- to a great extent, the reason for 4-6 weeks is b/c that is how they have structured that program to serve as a summer program.  When do non-homeschooled kids have a block of time?  In the summer.  So -- the summer drives the set-up.  I do not believe that the intensity is necessary.  B/c they also offer after-school tutoring and get the same results, it just takes longer in time passed, but not necessarily a longer of duration spent working on the skills (if you add up the therapy hours).  

 

My son spent I think 10 months, but with breaks in there for Christmas and semester breaks and Spring Break, when he was doing speech therapy.  They told me when he started they often see kids only need 3 months.  He needed more than that.  It is fine.  

 

But I personally think -- if it is working and he is making progress, there is no need to get attached to the 4-6 week model, that is based on people traveling to their tutoring centers during summer breaks.  It is nothing against that model.  I just don't think it is something where you must do that high of an amount per day to get anywhere, even though more-per-day does seem to mean less-passage-of-time is needed.  In my mind it is comparable to Barton saying -- if you tutor twice a week, you will take longer to get through than if you tutor 3 times a week, and that will take longer than if you tutor 5 times a week.  She says -- tutor at least twice a week to see any progress, less than that and too much is forgotten between sessions.  I don't think it is directly like that -- but I think along those lines.  My son was going to speech therapy twice a week, they didn't think once a week would be enough at the speech clinic, that was what they wanted to do with him.  

 

I do not know anything about the rhythm/EF stuff, it sounds cool, though.  I do not suspect my older son of needing help in that area.  I think he is fine to clap to rhythms and do rhythmic movements when they are a little slower, but as they get to be fast, it is hard for him to move that quickly.  But I don't think it is a big deal for him, I just can tell at church, and I can tell at VBS, and I can tell at music programs where they are doing actions and steps.  He is clearly having to work much harder at it than a lot of other kids.  He does better at slower songs, but the faster songs are a lot harder and he can look stressed out.  But how often are kids called on to do these things past 6th grade, if it is not their particular interest?  I think hardly ever.  But before OT -- he was acting like he was goofing off when things were getting too hard, I think, and wanted to avoid some things, and had some bad experiences with not being able to keep up.  But keeping-up-but-it-is-harder-than-for-other-kids is a huge step above not-keeping-up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...