Jump to content

Menu

Interesting article on therapies and interventions


rafiki
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 252
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Love her suggestion that VT isn't necessary if you just wait until they're older, that it was all a developmental delay if you could just embrace the timetable of the glorious right-dominant brain. Yeah right. My dd at 11, 12,13 could use that advice just about like the idiots who told us it would all correct if she crawled.

 

Fine to have a theory, but best to know what she's talking about before she makes MEDICAL statements. And to state that vision therapy doesn't work before age 8 is a bunch of crock too. Kinda makes you wonder who she runs around with to get her info. If you correct PHYSICAL VISION PROBLEMS then you prevent the DOMINO EFFECT of all the other visual processing skills that don't develop when the physical isn't in place. I would have LOVED to have had dd's vision problems identified at age 5 by the first optometrist we went to, rather than teaching for years against a visual processing system that never was going to get it to stick without intervention.

 

Not all problems go away just because you wait. I'm all for patience when it IS just a developmental delay. However not all problems go away just because you wait. Verbal apraxia may seem to go away when you wait, and it doesn't because it crops up other ways.

 

But I'm sure there was good in the article. I just get stuck on the junk. And I'm worn out from herding cats. I need chocolate and a good massage, however I'm slimming, meaning just the massage will have to do. Maybe I'll be nicer later. It was a messy morning. And yes, that's what I really wanted to talk about. Somebody have pity on me or pat my head or something, cuz I have two different kinds of cats going in two different directions and I haven't figured out yet how to make it go well. :willy_nilly:

Edited by OhElizabeth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dyslexia is biological in nature and has been studied since the 1990's utilizing MRI. Many respected dyslexia O-G based reading programs have a visual, kinesthetic, and auditory component. O-G itself is highly reliable and been around for years. There is a very narrow window for learning language, and I would never tell the parent of a struggling reader to wait and see. I believe it's rare for a child under 8 years old to even receive dyslexia tutoring, so I don't know what the author's talking about. DS started Wilson at the beginning of 2nd grade.

 

We live in a left brained world. Eventually our children will have to stand fully and live in it without us. I don't see the system changing to help our kids, nor do I trust the educational system, if by some miracle it did change.

 

On a happier note, I appreciate the author pointing out that these kids learn differently and on a different timeline. For years I have felt like DS has been pointlessly paddling upstream. He's home now and that's where he needs to be.

Edited by Heathermomster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fine to have a theory, but best to know what she's talking about before she makes MEDICAL statements. And to state that vision therapy doesn't work before age 8 is a bunch of crock too. Kinda makes you wonder who she runs around with to get her info. If you correct PHYSICAL VISION PROBLEMS then you prevent the DOMINO EFFECT of all the other visual processing skills that don't develop when the physical isn't in place. I would have LOVED to have had dd's vision problems identified at age 5 by the first optometrist we went to, rather than teaching for years against a visual processing system that never was going to get it to stick without intervention.

 

I, too, quibble with her statements about that and she states them as fact. They can't possibly be factual though. Vision therapy was absolutely (and measurably) life changing for my son and he completed it about age 5. It was one of the best things we've done for him.

 

My son is right brained FWIW. But he had severe visual processing issues (convergence, tracking) that needed correction. We saw huge changes as a direct result of that therapy before age 8. I do think right brained kids probably benefit more than most from a homeschool learning environment. As a former public school teacher (10 years), I knew my son wasn't cut out for school as it is long before I had ever heard of right brain oriented kids.

Edited by sbgrace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I talked to my husband on the phone today (he is in Afghanistan) and he is hearing from his mom that his little brother (20 now) is smoking pot often, and maybe going to be kicked out of her house. He was not able to join the military (as my husband did).

 

Not even going into some other family members, but this is my vision for not remediating dyslexia. My FIL seems very frustrated to me also. My husband is excelling in the Army and I have to say my MIL did what she could to work with him, though before the Internet I think it must have been about impossible.

 

If my son had seemed to be harmed by doing remediation, that would be a different story. But the harm of not doing remediation is very personal to me. And, though he was working hard for such a little kid, he was not harmed, either.

 

It doesn't offend me right now, but last year when I was getting criticized (by some people irl) for dragging my son to speech therapy and having him in public school (where they found fault with his speech) I did mind quite a bit.

 

I just don't think it is a delay he would grow out of vs. something where he needs remediation.

 

But at the same time, I am so happy to read of children who have come to things in their own time and matured into things.

 

Btw -- it looks like my son is starting 2nd grade on level. Yay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't completely buy in to the concept of right-brain/left-brain thinkers, even though I use the terms myself. I just see too much crossover in my own dc to believe that people can be so strictly one or the other. I've had neurologists and audiologists comment on the dramatic left-side dominance of one dd, but she still doesn't quite fit a lot of the commonly quoted criteria of a right-brainer.

 

I completely support the idea of letting kids learn at their own pace--that's why I hang out with the moms here--and I applaud the author for her efforts in promoting different curricula, different methods, and different developmental timetables for different kids. However, rejecting a developmental timetable altogether is questionable. Sometimes there can be medically-based issues that can be identified by consulting developmental timetables. My dh would be an example. There was a physical reason for his motor development being slow, and he may have had to face dangerous long-term consequences had he not received appropriate medication and therapy.

 

Another type of case is my oldest who has CAPD. She did not get better over time but worse. If we had not been persistent in getting the right diagnosis, it would have affected EVERY PART OF HER LIFE FOREVER: academics, social, family, spiritual. As it was, she was a bright kid who struggled unnecessarily for years because her problem wasn't identified. We could have said, "Oh, it doesn't matter that she can't understand what anyone is saying, we'll just find our own way to educate her and let her be happy." And good, well-meaning people encouraged us to do just that. But she wasn't happy, she wanted to understand and be part of things. Getting a diagnosis and addressing her problem hasn't kept her from doing things her own way; it's given HER the tools to help HER pursue HER dreams. Ironically, perhaps, the label has made her feel better about herself. It's also made her more compassionate toward others. A blessing all around.

Edited by NJKelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author had a lot of people disagree with some of her statement on therapy vs. "natural" development, and rightly so. However...

 

I think she was mainly talking about academic development, not physiological or medical. She was trying to make a case for a huge group of kids who currently are being put into special ed, VT, being medicated, or otherwise being pushed to perform at certain levels determined by and for left-brained people (I don't totally love this use of left-brained/right-brained either, but it's a convenient shorthand).

 

I have read elsewhere, although naturally I can't remember at the moment where, that 3-D vision and spatial rotation abilities develop quite early in RBL, and it takes a while for their 2-D, "flat" vision to settle down. So for many -- not all -- kids in VT, early pushing of inappropriate reading and writing tasks, taught against the way they learn and at the wrong moment in their developmental timeline, can lead to what LOOKS like vision issues. But if you put those kids back into a more hands-on, kinesthetic, visual/spatial curriculum for a couple more years, then go back to reading and writing, their apparent LDs would be either minimal or cleared up.

 

I have a gut feeling, no proof whatever, that this is true for a fairly big group of kids, just as it's true that many kids labeled ADHD and medicated so they can sit still and perform in a paper-based classroom would have their supposed LD "disappear" if they were allowed to take another year or two with a curriculum that let them move and bounce and jump, that used their kinesthetic abilities, etc. Not all -- of course not -- there will be some kids with true need for all kinds of interventions and help. But I think the blog author is merely saying that at the moment, in our educational culture, a good many kids are being pathologized instead of seen as a normal variant in types of learners.

 

My dd, too, needed therapies and interventions; she would not have grown out of her severe dysgraphia without VT, nor learned to control her body, balance, and movements to the extent that she does (still way below her age level norm) without OT and lots of other help. But she would have looked like a FAR more disabled child academically if she'd been set into a regular text and paper based school environment at a young age, expected to read and spell phonetically, and her outcome wouldn't have been nearly as good. This is why TWTM doesn't fit a kid like her. Using that, she would have looked seriously disabled early on, and never have been able to discover her strengths, or take her time developing writing fluency on her own terms even once she had finished VT.

 

I hope this makes sense! I don't know whether I've expressed it understandably or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes sense to me -- especially that your daughter sounds like she fits the model in many ways.

 

I really don't know about my son -- I am not sure what characteristics he fits. But, I do think for him, and kids like him, it is a danger to assume he fits those characteristics across the board only b/c a few similarities, especially when he did do well with his speech therapy (to learn to tell apart letter sounds etc).

 

If someone didn't investigate too much, assuming every thing would be outgrown ----- that is my concern.

 

For someone who is looking into all areas and also looks at it, I think it is a good perspective.

 

But wow I felt burned to be pursuing remediation -- it was threatening to some of my relatives for reasons I don't entirely understand -- but based on thinking "he is smart" and so thinking "he is smart = he will get it on his own in his own time" is better than thinking "he is smart but needs help in this area." It was like it was my fault there was this problem and if only I would ignore it there would be no problem. At the time it was beyond academic and also effecting how well he could play with other children (with his speech). Some trantrums and some crying when I couldn't understand what he was saying, starting to give up on talking to other people (though honestly this was very minor, but I saw it and it was very concerning to me).

Edited by Lecka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

But wow I felt burned to be pursuing remediation -- it was threatening to some of my relatives for reasons I don't entirely understand -- but based on thinking "he is smart" and so thinking "he is smart = he will get it on his own in his own time" is better than thinking "he is smart but needs help in this area." It was like it was my fault there was this problem and if only I would ignore it there would be no problem. At the time it was beyond academic and also effecting how well he could play with other children (with his speech). Some trantrums and some crying when I couldn't understand what he was saying, starting to give up on talking to other people (though honestly this was very minor, but I saw it and it was very concerning to me).

 

I think you are making a really crucial point that The Right Side of Normal seems not to address directly: that sometimes these issues can't be confined to a discrete academic realm, but spill over and affect the everyday functioning and happiness of our kids. With dd, her vision issues were preventing her from reading the smaller print books that she desperately wanted to read, and also causing her to trip, fall, bang herself, and be wary of active games instead of joining in. So you couldn't say, oh, reading will come in its own time. She COULD read, but not smaller fonts, not what she really wanted to read and not as long as she wanted to. For her, with her desires, this was a problem, and I think Cindy Gaddis would agree that it was a problem too. I don't know whether as part of an SN community we have a distorted view of just how many kids there are out there who do have real issues that will not resolve over time, and she says this too: we won't know until RBL have received educations that fit them, so that we understand more about "neurotypical right-brained learners," so to speak, ones who don't have true LDs that affect many facets of their lives, not just an inappropriate academic curriculum or timetable. The problem is we can't always identify these kids when their symptoms are very subtle or very complex or contradictory.

 

For other kids who weren't as obsessed with stories and being able to read what she wanted as dd was, or whose vision functioned fine in larger bodily-spatial ways, it may not have been an issue to wait a few years for visual processing to do whatever it does on its own.

 

I think -- I'm not speaking for her but for what I think she's getting at -- that Cindy Gaddis is talking about those other kinds of kids, whose general ability to get around without fear or harm or breaking things, or to rough house or play field sports or other things of that nature, to make things and build things, is not affected; they're just not yet ready for long periods of time spent over texts, nor should they need to simply because these are the expectations that have been set for LBL (often inappropriately for them as well!). I think she's absolutely right in this regard.

 

But that does seem like a bit too tidy of a division, and in reality, many of our kids straddle that nice dividing line and we have no way of knowing whether they will outgrow their problems or whether they need intervention. And as many of us here know, visual processing is often also tied up with hand-eye coordination and much more. If it were so easy to tell one way or the other (whether the child would or wouldn't develop "just fine"), I doubt as many people would take issue with what she is saying.

Edited by Doodler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she was mainly talking about academic development, not physiological or medical. She was trying to make a case for a huge group of kids who currently are being put into special ed, VT, being medicated, or otherwise being pushed to perform at certain levels determined by and for left-brained people (I don't totally love this use of left-brained/right-brained either, but it's a convenient shorthand).

 

I also think that the author was talking about academic development but sometimes it's not so clear what's behind a problem that looks academic. I know a couple of kids who have been on ADHD meds for years to manage behavioral problems who turned out to have thyroid problems. And my dd's CAPD looked very much like ADD.

 

I think you are making a really crucial point that The Right Side of Normal seems not to address directly: that sometimes these issues can't be confined to a discrete academic realm, but spill over and affect the everyday functioning and happiness of our kids.

 

In our house, everyday functioning has been more of an issue than academics. In ps, my kids performed so well comparatively that their other issues (CAPD, SPD) weren't addressed, but these same issues affected our lives every.single.day. The academic side of these issues became more obvious over time not less.

 

With dd, her vision issues were preventing her from reading the smaller print books that she desperately wanted to read, and also causing her to trip, fall, bang herself, and be wary of active games instead of joining in. So you couldn't say, oh, reading will come in its own time. She COULD read, but not smaller fonts, not what she really wanted to read and not as long as she wanted to. For her, with her desires, this was a problem, and I think Cindy Gaddis would agree that it was a problem too. I don't know whether as part of an SN community we have a distorted view of just how many kids there are out there who do have real issues that will not resolve over time, and she says this too: we won't know until RBL have received educations that fit them, so that we understand more about "neurotypical right-brained learners," so to speak, ones who don't have true LDs that affect many facets of their lives, not just an inappropriate academic curriculum or timetable. The problem is we can't always identify these kids when their symptoms are very subtle or very complex or contradictory.

 

For other kids who weren't as obsessed with stories and being able to read what she wanted as dd was, or whose vision functioned fine in larger bodily-spatial ways, it may not have been an issue to wait a few years for visual processing to do whatever it does on its own.

 

I think -- I'm not speaking for her but for what I think she's getting at -- that Cindy Gaddis is talking about those other kinds of kids, whose general ability to get around without fear or harm or breaking things, or to rough house or play field sports or other things of that nature, to make things and build things, is not affected; they're just not yet ready for long periods of time spent over texts, nor should they need to simply because these are the expectations that have been set for LBL (often inappropriately for them as well!). I think she's absolutely right in this regard.

 

But that does seem like a bit too tidy of a division, and in reality, many of our kids straddle that nice dividing line and we have no way of knowing whether they will outgrow their problems or whether they need intervention. And as many of us here know, visual processing is often also tied up with hand-eye coordination and much more. If it were so easy to tell one way or the other (whether the child would or wouldn't develop "just fine"), I doubt as many people would take issue with what she is saying.

 

:iagree:BTW, I'm not criticizing the author; I'm just playing with her ideas.

 

And I have known older kids who had significant reading difficulties (as in really couldn't read) and there was no sign of them outgrowing it. It was a major issue for them even if it wasn't for their parents. I also know kids who were late readers who blossomed in their own time. Both families had more of an unschooling approach, though, which is different from what the author is suggesting, I think. With what we've been through, I just don't know if I would be comfortable waiting.

 

FWIW, I think the author would probably like our approach. We have done some evals--and I'd do more if I had the money for the sake of future academic planning--but most of our "therapy" has been home-grown stuff like music, martial arts, a lot of reading aloud. We also tailor our curriculum a lot. However, just because this seems to have been sufficient with my kids really doesn't mean it's the best approach for everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think that the author was talking about academic development but sometimes it's not so clear what's behind a problem that looks academic. I know a couple of kids who have been on ADHD meds for years to manage behavioral problems who turned out to have thyroid problems. And my dd's CAPD looked very much like ADD.

 

I completely agree with you. The group of kids she seems to be talking about is defined SOLELY, it would seem, by a different developmental timetable for academic work.

 

It's very interesting to see one group of people/professionals pushing for testing, therapies and medication, labeling of a different timetable or way of processing and thinking as LDs, while on the other hand a group of people/professionals is now beginning to equally push for NOT doing these things.

 

Meanwhile there's a group of kids caught in the middle, our kids, who wouldn't outgrow particular issues if we waited until they were fifty, but who may ALSO naturally progress beyond others. Dd, for instance, couldn't distinguish certain soft vowel sounds until she was around eleven or twelve, but without any kind of intervention she seems to be able to do so now. After VT she still couldn't spell AT ALL. She had no "intervention" or remedial work, just a shift in how I worked with her to fit her visual way of processing language. Although spelling is never going to be her strength, she can spell better than any number of people whose posts I've read on the main forums! And it's certainly not an LD for her now.

 

On the other hand, not only did she need OT and VT, but she continues to be affected and in some instances quite hampered by fine motor and visual-spatial problems -- not academically so much, although she can't use a graphing calculator because the buttons and graph are too small. But she'll probably not drive, she can't play an instrument as she would love to because the eye-hand-brain connections to play in rhythm just aren't there, and her low tone makes her tire more easily than other kids.

 

I agree with you heartily about the complexity, masking, and compensations that make these kids so impossible to pinpoint or categorize one way or another, or to make overarching statements about. But again, I don't think they are the group The Right Side of Normal is talking about. They may be right-brained, but they have only their own everyday normal, which may not fit anyone else's, anywhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My youngest is probably a visio-spatial learner (what I presume she means by "right brained") but the proper nutritional support has been incredibly helpful in reducing the extent of her developmental delay. I don't see it as an "either-or" type situation but rather a synergistic one. The proper nutritional support allows the educational interventions to be more effective. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my dad tested as having a 129 IQ when he was a teen. But he could not read a full sentence until he was 30 (after intensive help from my mom). He still struggles, but at least he was able to pass licensing exams etc.

 

So yeah. Just give it time.

 

My dd's birth mom's signature is her thumbprint.

 

Yeah, just give it time.

 

I'm glad I had examples IRL, so I could not be easily convinced that "time" is the default answer to difficulties and delays. As soon as I heard the words "insufficient convergence" (when my daughter was 3), I was googling vision therapy. The results speak for themselves.

 

Now we're back for other kinds of therapy. It's not that she's behind in any obvious way. It's just mom instinct (and the therapists' corroborating test results) that something is off. I'd rather find out later that I was overly proactive than that there was something I could have done to prevent problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my dad tested as having a 129 IQ when he was a teen. But he could not read a full sentence until he was 30 (after intensive help from my mom). He still struggles, but at least he was able to pass licensing exams etc.

 

So yeah. Just give it time.

 

My dd's birth mom's signature is her thumbprint.

 

Yeah, just give it time.

 

 

Those are very sad stories and I'm so sorry for these people!

 

I think, however, she's not saying ONLY "give it time," but ALSO "teach them in a way that helps them learn, whether or not that's the way that conventional LBL, incremental, early reading and writing programs run." That is, give them time within a context of an education that fits their talents and methods of processing and developmental timetable. We don't know how many kids would thrive in a different curriculum or with teaching methods better geared to their visual-spatial ways of processing, and not need therapies or interventions if they were taught that way. There are still only a few people championing radically different kinds of school structures and curricula for VSL learners and right-brained kids, and LOTS of RBK stuck in very early text-oriented, reading and writing intensive programs that are inappropriate for them AT THAT EARLY AGE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it's rare for a child under 8 years old to even receive dyslexia tutoring, so I don't know what the author's talking about.

 

 

That's been my experience as well. We're so far behind in my neck of the woods. I couldn't get the optometrist to take my concerns seriously when my middle son wasn't reading at age 8, though once I pushed it was so obvious he had tracking issues. I took my oldest in because of auditory/processing concerns, and got to hear how CAPD isn't real and that there's just this sliding scale of normal. I suspect a professional with little experience reading articles like that could be a dangerous thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are very sad stories and I'm so sorry for these people!

 

I think, however, she's not saying ONLY "give it time," but ALSO "teach them in a way that helps them learn, whether or not that's the way that conventional LBL, incremental, early reading and writing programs run." That is, give them time within a context of an education that fits their talents and methods of processing and developmental timetable. We don't know how many kids would thrive in a different curriculum or with teaching methods better geared to their visual-spatial ways of processing, and not need therapies or interventions if they were taught that way. There are still only a few people championing radically different kinds of school structures and curricula for VSL learners and right-brained kids, and LOTS of RBK stuck in very early text-oriented, reading and writing intensive programs that are inappropriate for them AT THAT EARLY AGE.

 

I'm sure that is true for some kids. And presumably there are ways to identify kids whose issues are due to opportunity versus physical differences. However, I think it is very important to be proactive "in case" your kid is one of those who does need the intervention. It angers me that the professionals responsible for my daughter's care insist on waiting until she's falling behind before even screening for treatable issues. In our case, it means my kid's therapies will always be "out of pocket" because I don't plan on waiting until she's coming home from school in tears.

 

I can tell you that my kid's issues would have been issues regardless of which side of the brain you targeted. She could not "see" letters and words (despite wearing strong glasses). She could not write the letter "A" after years of trying. She needed intervention before she missed out on more of what all her peers were doing.

 

Also, this "right brain teaching" stuff is also an "intervention," so applying the author's own logic to it, we should blow it off as long as we can, right?

Edited by SKL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could tell my son was struggling in preschool. I can’t tell you how many times I was told to just give it time. By the middle of kindergarten, if you asked him what the first sound in the word mom was, he would say p or q or k – he had no idea. (And his name starts with an M!) He didn’t know his letter sounds and reading was out of the question.

 

You can test for dyslexia at 5 – they just can’t tell you definitely whether the child is or isn’t – they will just say there is a high likelihood. In my son’s case, the tester said he was one of the more severe cases she had tested. We started Wilson (OG method) with him and by the end of kindergarten he was reading.

 

Now I am in school to get my master’s in Special Education. I can’t tell you how many research studies there are about how effective early intervention is – the brain can literally rewire itself.

 

IMHO, the earlier the better to start remediation. Of course at that age, you throw in a lot of games and go at a very slow pace but I have been astounded at the progress my son has made and he just turned seven. I am getting ready to have him tested again to start the paper trail when/if he ever goes to public school.

 

I agree that O-G tutoring is rare for children under 8 but I wish the wasn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t tell you how many research studies there are about how effective early intervention is – the brain can literally rewire itself.

 

IMHO, the earlier the better to start remediation. Of course at that age, you throw in a lot of games and go at a very slow pace but I have been astounded at the progress my son has made and he just turned seven. I am getting ready to have him tested again to start the paper trail when/if he ever goes to public school.

:iagree:My daughter's progress (starting VT at nearly age 4) has been FAST. It really is like her brain was only "tentatively wired" and easily molded. I believe this is due to her young age. It's tempting to believe that she would have grown out of it on her own, but having watched her avoid printed material and fall further and further behind (and given her birth mom's history), I know she wouldn't have.

 

I have a happy child who loves being able to read and work along with her peers. Try to convince me that early intervention wasn't in her best interest. That she ought to be a grade behind, looking all around the room when the teacher asks her a question she has no idea how to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:

I have a happy child who loves being able to read and work along with her peers. Try to convince me that early intervention wasn't in her best interest. That she ought to be a grade behind, looking all around the room when the teacher asks her a question she has no idea how to answer.

 

Exactly! I tutor kids with dyslexia now, many of whom have struggled for years in school. It's heartbreaking to see the low opinion some of them have about themselves. Now it can be argued that the problem is with the way the school system teaches the kids and that they will eventually get it in their own time, but if a child can be spared the agony of struggling, why not go that route? Just my opinion....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! I tutor kids with dyslexia now, many of whom have struggled for years in school. It's heartbreaking to see the low opinion some of them have about themselves. Now it can be argued that the problem is with the way the school system teaches the kids and that they will eventually get it in their own time, but if a child can be spared the agony of struggling, why not go that route? Just my opinion....

 

I totally agree with you that it is no good for anyone to go through years of struggling. And I can't the author of the piece is recommending letting kids flounder and struggle until they get it in their own time!

 

Rather, she argues that these kids need a curriculum and a manner of teaching that fits their learning style and needs, which are legitimate and different (but not necessarily LDs UNLESS you put them into a system/curriculum that doesn't work for their particular wiring). This "other" curriculum and learning environment would include an academic timetable that is different from one based on early reading and writing. It would emphasize and utilize different topics, activities, approaches, and skills at different times than those usually specified by a text-intensive early elementary program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I can't the author of the piece is recommending letting kids flounder and struggle until they get it in their own time!

 

Rather, she argues that these kids need a curriculum and a manner of teaching that fits their learning style and needs, which are legitimate and different (but not necessarily LDs UNLESS you put them into a system/curriculum that doesn't work for their particular wiring). This "other" curriculum and learning environment would include an academic timetable that is different from one based on early reading and writing. It would emphasize and utilize different topics, activities, approaches, and skills at different times than those usually specified by a text-intensive early elementary program.

 

Oh I don't think she wants kids to struggle either! I meant no disrespect to the author. And I like what she is saying about catering to their interests and about right brain learners. I do incorporate all of those elements into my son's schooling. I just think you can do all that and still introduce (gentle and slow) remediation efforts for reading and writing at an early age. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that is true for some kids. And presumably there are ways to identify kids whose issues are due to opportunity versus physical differences. However, I think it is very important to be proactive "in case" your kid is one of those who does need the intervention. It angers me that the professionals responsible for my daughter's care insist on waiting until she's falling behind before even screening for treatable issues. In our case, it means my kid's therapies will always be "out of pocket" because I don't plan on waiting until she's coming home from school in tears.

 

 

This has been my family's issue. We were very proactive and didn't wait until DS failed. Like you, my father has undiagnosed LDs and is a very angry man...BIL has dyspraxia, DH struggled with reading early on. We knew the possibly of dyslexia existed...Never imagined the maths and handwriting issues.

 

Anyho,,when DS was little, I had no interest in watching my little boy be left behind. Teachers wanted to wait and see because he did so well, other than the fact that my 7 yo couldn't read. Upon reflection, that sounds really stupid. It's so irritating,,,.I'm shocked sometimes by the way teachers have spoken to me about DS and not even blinked....We've totally gone the private route, and I feel like he's better off this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did home remediation on the early side b/c my son failed the Dibels screening all through K, every section, and his teacher seemed to me to throw up her hands on that issue.

 

Also family members on my husband's side who did not receive early intervention and, in retrospect, would have benefited from it.

 

I do see the point, totally, of the article, for kids who have only academic problems. Maybe I presented my son's stuff too much with just reading, when my parents would be all "he is too young to worry about reading." But it was so tied up with his speech and he was really hurt socially by his speech as he got to be 4 years old, with less opportunities for pretend play and hurt feelings when he tried to do pretend play and kids didn't understand him. So he was happy to do running-around play, but I would see him try pretend play and be re-buffed, and it was getting worse as he got older and wanted to say things.

 

I would say "working on reading" and mean working on letter sounds and learning to blend and segment. That is not cruelty for a 6-year-old! Or, it wasn't cruelty for my 6-year-old, though he worked hard. Anyway, I made some mistakes of trying to go too fast sometimes, but overall, I don't think I was cruel.

Edited by Lecka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t tell you how many research studies there are about how effective early intervention is – the brain can literally rewire itself.

 

IMHO, the earlier the better to start remediation. Of course at that age, you throw in a lot of games and go at a very slow pace but I have been astounded at the progress my son has made and he just turned seven.

 

Amen! This is what bugs me most about the article, that the writer FAILS TO GRASP that intervening early and appropriately is RE-WIRING the brain.

 

I remember someone asking me, when I was doing a lot of therapy stuff with dd, whether I was worried that I was un-doing or losing the essence of her by fighting against her unique wiring. I replied that no, it was actually the opposite, that her unique parts were still there (narrative, creative, strong bent toward history and creating with her hands, etc.). What changed was that the OTHER parts could start kicking in.

 

It's like there's such a naturalistic thought pattern here that the situation is worshipped and mustn't be altered. I don't think you could alter these kids if you tried, not really. You could squash 'em, sure, but they are who they are and it's GOING to come out. All therapy does is build wiring in the REST of the brain and make more connections so they have more choices. Before interventions they have no choices but are stuck with only the options already wired in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you that it is no good for anyone to go through years of struggling. And I can't the author of the piece is recommending letting kids flounder and struggle until they get it in their own time!

 

Rather, she argues that these kids need a curriculum and a manner of teaching that fits their learning style and needs, which are legitimate and different (but not necessarily LDs UNLESS you put them into a system/curriculum that doesn't work for their particular wiring). This "other" curriculum and learning environment would include an academic timetable that is different from one based on early reading and writing. It would emphasize and utilize different topics, activities, approaches, and skills at different times than those usually specified by a text-intensive early elementary program.

 

And what we're adding is that if the author wasn't all so hot to trot AGAINST THERAPY, she might find her kids wouldn't NEED the altered timetables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen! This is what bugs me most about the article, that the writer FAILS TO GRASP that intervening early and appropriately is RE-WIRING the brain.

 

I remember someone asking me, when I was doing a lot of therapy stuff with dd, whether I was worried that I was un-doing or losing the essence of her by fighting against her unique wiring. I replied that no, it was actually the opposite, that her unique parts were still there (narrative, creative, strong bent toward history and creating with her hands, etc.). What changed was that the OTHER parts could start kicking in.

 

It's like there's such a naturalistic thought pattern here that the situation is worshipped and mustn't be altered. I don't think you could alter these kids if you tried, not really. You could squash 'em, sure, but they are who they are and it's GOING to come out. All therapy does is build wiring in the REST of the brain and make more connections so they have more choices. Before interventions they have no choices but are stuck with only the options already wired in.

 

The bolding mine :)

 

The two points I highlighted are EXACTLY what has bugged me about Cindy Gaddis from the beginning. There's no middle ground for her. Its therapy is bad and by doing so, you are taking away their individualism and uniqueness.

 

I just don't believe that there is any harm at all in helping these kids find tools to help them acclimate to society and their outside interest. DS loves to draw and animate. However, he cannot WRITE our narrative. He loves drama yet cannot READ plays or dialogue. So, what I am doing is helping his gain the tools he needs to further explore his passions.

 

A year ago you could not read DS's handwriting at all. Now, after 6 months of Dianne Craft work, DS has pretty nice handwriting for a 7yo. Again, I do not see the harm in this at all.

 

OhElizabeth- you articulated precisely what irked me about the article and some of her other work all along. Thank you. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bolding mine :)

 

The two points I highlighted are EXACTLY what has bugged me about Cindy Gaddis from the beginning. There's no middle ground for her. Its therapy is bad and by doing so, you are taking away their individualism and uniqueness.

 

 

 

:lol: Are you implying a mom with a SN dc is herself a little too b&w or maybe a little aspie in her thinking? Never, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a huge difference being posited by Cindy Gaddis between simply being a right-brained learner in a school environment that REQUIRES the early development of text-based skills, and having a true LD that interferes with the acquiring, remembering, and processing of knowledge or of an academic skill, however that knowledge or skills is presented. She's saying that the first is often mistakenly seen as needing interventions and therapies when it is actually a case of a mismatch between the academic environment/curriculum and the child's learning needs.

 

If you insist that a visual learner function and succeed in a learning environment that goes against the natural timetable along which RBL's development occurs, if you insist on text-based learning and performance before those skills neurologically develop, you're creating what looks like an LD where none exists.

 

You would equally well create what look like LDs in a left-brained population of kids (and adults) if you threw them into a school that demanded they perform artistically and mechanically at a high level, that they rotate objects mentally in space in complex ways, that they all learn to outline using spider-webbing or pictorial outlines, etc.

 

This is a separate issue from kids with neurologically based processing glitches, working memory shortages, fine motor and hand-eye coordination deficits, speech disorders, etc. No one, absolutely no one, is saying to let these things go and let time naturally do magic work.

 

The problem is that sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between "right-brained normal" when kids are being asked to perform certain tasks out of developmental sequence, and true LDs. I think everybody is acknowledging this. These are the tricky gray areas. But perhaps, Cindy is saying, we might be able to distinguish them a BIT more clearly if the kids were in programs or using curricula or being taught in ways that suited their right-brained abilities. Then the LDs might truly stand out more clearly and obviously. But we don't know yet how much this would be true, because there's no widespread system that teaches RBL differently from LBL.

 

ETA: Cindy, I hope I'm not misrepresenting what you are saying. This is my take on it. I don't mean to put words in your mouth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, all of us here customize and are intensely individualizing our kids' studies. We have no issue with watching the kid and development. What we took issue with were comments like:

 

Finally, someone asked me if I felt things like vision therapy or brain gym or dyslexia programs were simply attempts at jump-starting natural learning patterns that would evolve given the appropriate time frame for right-brained learners. My short answer is Yes. Can they be useful? Yes and no.

 

That my friend is a medical statement and, well I'm getting too livid to reply politely. Vision therapy develops neural pathways that should have developed. Waiting does NOTHING, and early intervention PREVENTS the negative self-esteem and domino effect of not treating.

 

Why is it that vision therapy or dyslexia programs hardly ever “work” before the ages of 8 and 10 years old, which is when I say the time frame for most right-brained learners to shift into two-dimensional symbolic work occurs?

 

More irate thoughts here. I really can't fathom where you've gotten your information. We have a large practice of COVD docs, including fellows, and multiple COVD-certified therapists, and they regularly get ASTONISHING results with the very young. It has nothing to do with waiting and hoping it someday develops on its own. We didn't get my daughter VT till she was 11, and I WISH, WISH, WISH we had known about it earlier. I had my ds checked a year ago, age 2, and absolutely we're watching his development. BTW, you might not realize this, but VT with a little child is JOYOUS and simple. They do easy, delightful things like popping bubbles from a bubble machine. The child isn't made to feel defective, and he isn't left to the trauma of 8 years of failure in school subjects while his eyes can't process basic things visually.

 

Visual processing and developmental vision skills don't develop just because you wait. I'm doing vision therapy myself (age 38) for some issues that we now realize are vision-related. Why should anyone suffer when these issues are so EASY to test for??? See that's the mystifying thing to me, that you would DETER someone from pursuing treatment for things that are easily quantified and corrected with methods that are so natural as to be obvious. Vision therapy is largely activities that many of us tend to do naturally (kids play games with how well they cross their eyes, etc.). It's just more targeted.

 

Until the right-brained scope and sequence is understood and honored, we won’t know how that will positively impact learning. Will learning disabilities all but disappear? Will a smaller percentage of right-brained children now just need a little extra nudge or a different approach based on what we understand about how they learn to come to certain subjects?

 

Ok, don't even get me started on this one. I'm right there with you about the beauties of my dd's brain and her interests and her connections. However it didn't change a single fact about her vision problems, attention, or anything else.

 

Why shouldn’t there be an entire change in curriculum to suit the right-brained child? Why teach strategies to fit them into left-brained boxes? Why medicate them to fit in? Why put them through years of therapy to fit in?

 

This is the glaring hole in your article, this whole ASSUMPTION that we are doing therapies to fit in. We're NOT. We do the therapies to make them WHOLE, to bring out ALL the dimensions of their strengths. According to Freed, R-brained kids should be VSL. My dd, however, was processing totally *auditorily* because her visual processing was at the level of a 2 yo. We did VT and her VSL side started showing. It didn't *change* who she was!!! It made her WHOLE. It allowed ALL of her strengths to come out.

 

How does viewing the right-brained information as a valid learning process help shift your perspective about how you or your loved one learns? Does it help you say “No” more often to interventions, therapies, and medications in regard to typical right-brained differences to learning?

 

And I vigorously protest the suggestion that Dianne Craft represents some chunk of thought. She represents herself. On this board I find moms very eclectic, totally focused on keeping our kids engaged and feeding and nurturing them to their strengths, shoring up their weaknesses. Therapy is NOT about making them able to fit in somebody else's paradigm. It's about letting all they are come out so they can do all they're meant to do and able to do. You can't get out what's not in there. Therapy doesn't CHANGE the child or make them suddenly not VSL or not themselves or not creative. It just gives them MORE tools.

 

I don't think it's necessary to be *anti-therapy* to encourage people to teach their child, not the curriculum. I know people who medicate in order to put their kids through a paradigm, but they AREN'T people on this board. People on this board are intensely focused on nurturing our kids as individuals. And we do therapy, because it's the RIGHT thing to do. We do it because we know when you catch it EARLY and intervene wisely, you can change the course of their lives. My daughter (13) was taught *from the very beginning* with OG methods. What a GIFT that is to a child who otherwise might have only received that as remediation, after years of failure. How much BETTER to intervene with wise choices EARLY. Many of us here have people in our families and KNOW the consequences of not intervening. As if I would ever take back from my dd the blessing of being able to read?!?! She wouldn't have if I had pursued the traditional course or waited. The typical outcome with late remediation is NOTHING like the astonishing results moms on this board are getting with early intervention. It's NOT equivalent.

 

Catch 'em early, intervene gently, have more pathways to work with. You'd never apply a late/they'll outgrow it mentality to say aspergers/autism. Everyone knows those pathways are being formed and that catching it early allows you to work with them therapeutically to develop habits of flexibility, how they handle anxiety, etc. etc. You know that intuitively. And yet you don't want the same grace for academics and medical??

 

The pool where you're getting those early interventions is here, on boards like this. The internet is helping, because moms can get on boards and catch things and pool knowledge. My boy with verbal apraxia is going to be infinitely better off with the terrific interventions he was able to get than if he had been left to a more typical course (late identification, traditional phonics or whole word instruction, no remediation of phonemic awareness, etc. etc.). Sure you CAN go back and catch all those things at 8 or 10, but WHY? Why is it not a blessing to my ds to get them caught at *2* and *3* and never SUFFER the embarrassment and struggles of school not working? Why should he not have the blessing of the most innovative speech therapy treatments (that literally took him from non-verbal to TALKING in one session, btw) and computer-driven phonemic awareness software and OG-instruction? Why? Why should he suffer first, get therapy later? Why not do therapy now, while it's a GAME to the little one (which it is), and let him grow up feeling WHOLE? That's what I want. I'll customize, but my little one feels whole.

 

BTW, apraxia is one of those things some idiots have written books about saying we should just wait to intervene on, that they outgrow it. Well our children are not STATISTICS; they're human beings. And I would maintain kids DON'T outgrow it, that the problems keep cropping up later in other ways.

 

You also said this.

 

Why put them through years of therapy to fit in? It just isn’t fair. I see the effects in grown adults. Successful adults.

 

I would maintain there are adults out there who didn't get treated who DON'T feel whole. Sure they're successful. My dh is successful, extremely successful, but he can't sound out a word. Does that mean he feels whole and at peace with himself and his past? NO. He looks back on his education with all sorts of regrets. There are whole avenues not open to him, all because there WEREN'T interventions made for him. So I don't buy this idea that if we just redefine the goals, they'll all grow up and be happy. Maybe some will, but I think internally they have regrets and a lack of peace. The consequences of the problems remain and keep cropping up.

 

That’s why I steer conversations of therapies, interventions, medications, etc., back to understanding and honoring the natural learning path for right-brained children first and foremost. And in so doing, you're doing people a DISSERVICE. Good therapy and good interventions open up options for the child, new pathways, new tools. They go hand-in-hand with customizing to the child. It's not one or the other. And once you start making medical statements (VT not effective before 8, blah blah), then you need to be corrected.

 

If you put something out on a public forum, publish a book, run a blog, etc. etc., it's going to be open for disputation. We're disputing it, because the comments are imbalanced and don't fit with any of our experiences. It has nothing to do with whether we agree with you on the value of customized, child-appropriate education (because we DO). The issue is when you inaccurately portray the therapy and interventions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a huge difference being posited by Cindy Gaddis between simply being a right-brained learner in a school environment that REQUIRES the early development of text-based skills, and having a true LD that interferes with the acquiring, remembering, and processing of knowledge or of an academic skill, however that knowledge or skills is presented. She's saying that the first is often mistakenly seen as needing interventions and therapies when it is actually a case of a mismatch between the academic environment/curriculum and the child's learning needs.

 

If you insist that a visual learner function and succeed in a learning environment that goes against the natural timetable along which RBL's development occurs, if you insist on text-based learning and performance before those skills neurologically develop, you're creating what looks like an LD where none exists.

 

You would equally well create what look like LDs in a left-brained population of kids (and adults) if you threw them into a school that demanded they perform artistically and mechanically at a high level, that they rotate objects mentally in space in complex ways, that they all learn to outline using spider-webbing or pictorial outlines, etc.

 

This is a separate issue from kids with neurologically based processing glitches, working memory shortages, fine motor and hand-eye coordination deficits, speech disorders, etc. No one, absolutely no one, is saying to let these things go and let time naturally do magic work.

 

The problem is that sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between "right-brained normal" when kids are being asked to perform certain tasks out of developmental sequence, and true LDs. I think everybody is acknowledging this. These are the tricky gray areas. But perhaps, Cindy is saying, we might be able to distinguish them a BIT more clearly if the kids were in programs or using curricula or being taught in ways that suited their right-brained abilities. Then the LDs might truly stand out more clearly and obviously. But we don't know yet how much this would be true, because there's no widespread system that teaches RBL differently from LBL.

 

ETA: Cindy, I hope I'm not misrepresenting what you are saying. This is my take on it. I don't mean to put words in your mouth!

 

Ok Doodles, I'm trying to understand you here. You're saying you posit there's something called a normal right-brained style, without LD? But someone would find quantifiable things to do therapy or interventions for in that dc with the supposedly right-brained without LD? I'm just trying to figure out what this person is. Or what is this person NOT? They're not adhd? They're not aspie? They're not ANYTHING that needs therapy or intervention and JUST miraculously right-brained and normal??? And so for this person who is right-brain dominant with no aspie, no adhd, no apraxia, no developmental vision problems, no... you are concerned that they aren't getting the personalized learning? Well more power to this theoretical person to get what they need. Unfortunately, I don't think a single one of us on this SN board are in that position. :lol:

 

I mean, mercy, I'm not trying to laugh (really I'm not), but what is that??? Or let's flip it. You're saying the adhd right-brained kid (Freed says adhd are right-brained) is therefore to be accepted as normal, not an LD? And it doesn't bother you that the kid has identifiable, measurable, TREATABLE developmental issues with vision or working memory or executive function or phonemic awareness? Ignore all that because they're right-brained?

 

I mean, dude, I KNOW you're not saying that.

 

I just can't figure out what this population is. Right-brained, no LD, no identifiable need for therapy (because of course we wouldn't refuse therapy to a dc who actually has a medical NEED for it). I don't know who we're talking about here. Certainly not a figure in my house.

 

Standards have really changed for recognition. Therapies are available that weren't before. Apraxia, for instance, was just openly accepted. Not to have a dc talking till age 4 (and all the consequences of that) was just unavoidable and accepted. Now we have better interventions, earlier testing. So I think a lot of these "happy successful adults" one could cite are more in the category of undiagnosed, got by, accepted the results. I wanted my kid able to talk. I want my kids able to read. I want my ds to have options besides the careers he'd be limited to without therapy. I KNOW kids who aren't getting therapeutic interventions and all the kid-centered hands-on options in the world don't make a HILL OF BEANS difference on reality. It makes me ANGRY when those kids don't get interventions.

 

You know I love you. I'm just unsure of who the target market is. Gotta be real clear in our thinking. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you don't mind my joining the conversation. Someone shared that my article was being discussed, and it interests me greatly to hear the differing opinions.

 

First, I understand how sensitive helping our children can be. Really, I do. Almost every kind of learning difference you can label, I probably have a child who I have supported in navigating it.

 

If you read my article again, as several of you have tried to point out, I am advocating understanding how right-brained children learn first as the foundation. It is a basic fact that behind almost every learning label is a right-brained learner. As noted in my article, people who help with therapies like Dianne Craft even recognize this.

 

In my last paragraph, I share that if we can understand and implement a valid right-brained scope and sequence, if there are still difficulties, we may find that the intervention is less intrusive or intensively needed.

 

I do find it interesting that some of you still believe strongly that everyone should fit into the current scope and sequence, even though there are many professionals who will admit it is left-brained focused. It might be interesting if our schools were right-brained focused instead, and those of us who are left-brained may struggle and be labeled and wonder what's wrong with how we learn. I just don't think it's fair that those who are right-brained dominant struggle and have to remediate and work twice as hard compared to their left-brained peers because the environment is a mismatch.

 

I'm really interested in understanding others' points of view, though!

-Cindy Gaddis

 

Thank you for stopping by, Cindy. Your input is appreciated in this discussion.

 

Despite any impression you've got from this thread, I think you would find if you spent more time here, many of our SN moms do not strongly believe that everyone should fit into the current scope and sequence. That's why we're homeschooling, and that's why we're HERE, so we can share ideas to help our children grow and learn in the best possible way for them, whatever that is, in their own time--because most of us are not getting the support to do that anywhere else, on the other boards or in real life.

 

The reality is that it's a process, a sometimes very hard, grief-filled process, to understand and accept our children for who they are, especially when they are different from us and most especially when there are behavioral challenges that go along with the learning differences. Obviously, you've been doing this for a long time and found your peace. I, for one, am still working toward it and appreciate a shoulder to lean on.

 

While it's probably very true for many parents with kids in traditional schools, it's hard for me to imagine that many homeschooling families use professional evaluations and therapies for the purpose of fitting their children into some cookie-cutter, left-brained mold. That's why they're homeschooling in the first place, to get away from that. But they do want to better understand their children's struggles and help their kids develop the skills they need to live in this world and follow their dreams.

 

Changing the subject a bit, I question whether it's appropriate to force kids into a right-brained mold just because they have learning differences because most experts say that's where they should fit. And why is there this negativity toward left-brain thinking in general, not just the imposition of it on right-brained types?

 

For what it's worth, the Asperger brain description from the article on your website that Doodler linked in the other thread seems to more closely approach my experience than any strict right/left-brained dichotomy. I'd like to read more about various brain mixes. Please let me know if there are more articles like that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Freed, R-brained kids should be VSL. My dd, however, was processing totally *auditorily* because her visual processing was at the level of a 2 yo. We did VT and her VSL side started showing. It didn't *change* who she was!!! It made her WHOLE. It allowed ALL of her strengths to come out.

 

Elizabeth, I don't want to fan the flames when you're clearly so upset, so please read this as written in a very gentle font and spoken to you with the utmost kind intent. I truly think you're missing the point. Your dd, and mine, are kids who are not only right-brained learners, but who have, as you say, quantifiable physiological and neurological glitches. All right-brained learners DO NOT have these -- Freed's book uses examples of kids who are struggling and feeling like failures because the method of teaching does not fit their right-brained mode, not because they have the wiring glitches my dd has, for instance. Cindy is talking about a "right-brained normal," and neither you nor I have kids that fit that description entirely. There's more going on, just as there is in Cindy's spectrum kids who did receive interventions.

 

I don't know your dh and know nothing about whether or not he has similar glitches. But it is pretty well certain that he was taught, as people of our generation were, in an EXTREMELY left-brained classroom setting that was a horrible mismatch for his strengths and out of synch with his developmental academic timetable. His regrets about his education may in large part stem from the struggles and feelings this unsuitable educational environment imposed on him rather than from a lack of intervention/therapy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elizabeth, I don't want to fan the flames when you're clearly so upset, so please read this as written in a very gentle font and spoken to you with the utmost kind intent. I truly think you're missing the point. Your dd, and mine, are kids who are not only right-brained learners, but who have, as you say, quantifiable physiological and neurological glitches. All right-brained learners DO NOT have these -- Freed's book uses examples of kids who are struggling and feeling like failures because the method of teaching does not fit their right-brained mode, not because they have the wiring glitches my dd has, for instance. Cindy is talking about a "right-brained normal," and neither you nor I have kids that fit that description entirely. There's more going on, just as there is in Cindy's spectrum kids who did receive interventions.

 

I don't know your dh and know nothing about whether or not he has similar glitches. But it is pretty well certain that he was taught, as people of our generation were, in an EXTREMELY left-brained classroom setting that was a horrible mismatch for his strengths and out of synch with his developmental academic timetable. His regrets about his education may in large part stem from the struggles and feelings this unsuitable educational environment imposed on him rather than from a lack of intervention/therapy.

 

I think I need a little more description of what right-brained normal looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elizabeth, I am thinking, for instance, of the kids Freed talks about in his book who are perfectly able to do high level math, reading, and writing once they are taught in ways that fit with the way they learn, not with left-brained strategies. You've read his book, no? The whole first part of it talks about these particular kids who come in feeling stupid, even suicidal, and the problem is not that they have an LD, but that they need to be taught differently. The whole first part of his book is about ADD, but he doesn't consider it academically so disabling that the kids need massive therapies or intervention -- the kids he's dealing with anyway -- just as kids who are stuck in a system that wants them to do things in a way that doesn't work for their way of learning.

 

I'm thinking of kids I've read about, not just on the SN board but on the other ones, who do a lot of math in their heads and resist having to show all their work in algebra. When I wrote that I didn't make dd do this unless I saw a lot of mistakes cropping up, and then I only had her do a few so I could track where the mistakes were happening, I got blasted out the window! I wonder how many people let their kids simply write down the answer -- kids who don't think sequentially, but arrive at answers in a kind of Gestalt way, or mental "tesseract"? No, almost every single one of us insists that the kid needs to show the work from the get-go, because that's the convention in math, or because "when you're in college or grad school other people need to see how you got your answer and be able to replicate your process, say in science." Well, does a right-brained 7th or 8th grader who doesn't arrive at answers in a linear, step-by-step fashion have to do what someone does in college and grad school? For every problem? From the get go? Or can they arrive at that stage later?

 

(For what it's worth, by the end of algebra dd WAS writing out steps to problems because they got so complicated and unwieldy that it was easier and more useful to write them out. But in doing so she lost some of that ability to look at the whole and reach the answer in the way she used to. Dh, a scientist who has taught advanced math and physics as well as chemistry at the university and graduate level, is having to help her regain some of that ability now.)

 

I am also thinking of the huge part of dd's dysgraphia diagnosis which had to do with her spelling, which at age eleven was almost non-existent. This was because I had not realized that she was a visual speller, or even known that there was such a thing, and hadn't known ways to work with her to utilize and develop her visual memory. Once I had that, with Freed's techniques, she was able to become a solid speller with only the most occasional errors, VERY quickly. She couldn't distinguish soft vowel sounds until she was older, around eleven; but was that an LD? Only when I tried to teach he to spell phonetically. With visual spelling, it wasn't an issue. And she eventually did distinguish those sounds... but she still doesn't spell phonetically, nor does she need to. If a kid who spells phonetically was never taught that, but taught to memorize whole words or use visual techniques exclusively would THAT kid have an LD? Only within the system that was using an approach that didn't fit. Neither one nor the other way of spelling is the "right" or best way. They're both valid.

 

Another part of dd's dysgraphia diagnosis was her illegible handwriting. Yes, part of this was due to visual and fine motor problems, but by age eleven we'd sorted those out. Her handwriting improved a bit, but all of a sudden at age fourteen, she developed this incredibly beautiful, tidy printing, and she was able within a period of months to process AND RETAIN punctuation conventions that had not clicked all those years.

 

The conclusion I make is that a great part of her dysgraphia was simply being right-brained, and being on a different developmental timetable as far as certain aspects of certain academic skills were concerned. THOSE PARTICULAR ASPECTS did not need intervention or therapy, but the understanding of her way of learning, and the time until she had that developmental leap.

 

I've posted over and over on these boards about dd's spectacular, jaw-dropping growth in writing; I've repeated stories by others of their right-brained kids -- ADHD, dyslexic, visual learners, what have you -- who had similar leaps in mid-adolescence.

 

Yet what do people do (not only people on this board, and not everybody, but most of us, myself included)? They worry and fret when their kids haven't had this click, this leap, at earlier ages, even as early as seven! They can't imagine "simply waiting" this long for something to happen to make it all better, although I've also written over and over that you're not just waiting, you're continually working on things like critical thinking, logical organization of thoughts and speaking, more complex thought about reading, writing fluency in other ways. I have been just as subject to this panic -- to this feeling dd should do what a left-brained developmental timetable says she should be doing -- as you have. Yet I have also seen that dd didn't need years of incremental practice from sentences to paragraphs to five-paragraph essays -- she didn't need left-brained techniques -- to become an accomplished writer.

 

But again, all this didn't happen until mid-adolescence.

 

That's what I'm thinking of -- that we don't realize the extent to which we are influenced and pressured by an idea of what our kids should be doing as output, particularly written output, that is predicated on what "left-brained" kids generally do. It's what David Albert has called "your inner school," and it's a whole constellation of unarticulated or articulated expectations of what your child "should" do or achieve at a certain age, based on curricula developed around the learning profiles and timetables of left-brained learners.

 

I value your friendship and your views too, Elizabeth, and the last thing I want to do is upset you or make you think I don't honor and admire what you're doing with your dd. Because I do admire it tremendously. But I have seen you return obsessively with what she "should" be doing regarding written work, at levels that are clearly way above what she is doing, and doing really wonderfully. You sometimes want her operating at higher levels of output than the WTM guidelines. I'm not saying our kids don't need challenges, or that it isn't a process of hit-and-miss and constant readjustment, for all of us, to figure out what level of challenge is a good one; just that you do harbor those internal measurements or guidelines, as we all do, that are not always appropriate for a right-brained child of her age, to a degree you might not realize.

 

So do I think there is a "right-brained normal" such as Cindy Gaddis describes? Yes, very much so. Do I think dd is that normal? No, not entirely. She is on the spectrum and with that has come complications and what are clearly mind-body connection glitches. Does every spectrum kid have these? No, I don't think so. Dh is also an Aspie, and he went through the British boarding school all the way through university and to a PhD without interventions or accommodations. The boarding school required lots of reading and writing, but it also had enormous amounts of outdoor activity and hands-on projects right the way through to O-levels. The specifically text-based and writing-based demands kicked into high gear only after that, when he went to study for A-levels, at what would here be around 10th or 11th grade. He has lovely handwriting (it's one of the things I fell for when I met him). He has social communication issues and he definitely processes the world, particularly the social and emotional world, differently. But he's doing what he wanted to do since age eight. He's got some organizational challenges, LOL, but nothing that I haven't seen in any number of other people, Aspie or not, left or right brained. He's nowhere near as bad as many of them.

 

My writing is getting rambly; it's late for me and I need to get to bed. But I do not think that right-brained and learning disabilities always, inevitably, and necessarily occur together, no. I do think that even those of us who tailor our children's educations for their strengths and needs, who love the people they are and don't want to make them into anyone different, nevertheless can all too easily get caught up in an academic framework of timetables and expectations, especially concerning writing, that we assume are universally applicable but that are actually designed by and for left-brained people. And we often don't even realize that's what we're doing. It's such an embedded internal part of our thinking about "school."

 

And again, saying all this does NOT mean I don't recognize neurological and physiological deficits or problems, or that all therapy is unnecessary and you should just gaily wait for everything to magically resolve. Dd ws in therapy of various sorts for a couple of years. She still has physical (fine motor and visual) deficits. Of course I do anything in my power to help her overcome these, to the degree they can be overcome, and through whatever method. But they are not LDs in that they do NOT affect her ability to learn, to process, to retain, and to apply academic skills and/or knowledge at VERY high levels. But she does these things -- learning, processing, retaining, and applying -- through very different ways and on a different timetable than the standard left-brained model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I need a little more description of what right-brained normal looks like.

 

Do you know Cindy's blog? It's at http://www.therightsideofnormal.com and she's got many, many descriptions, examples, and a great chart comparing the timetables and characteristics of left- and right-brained development. That chart was the first thing I ever read that unequivocally fit the long-term patterns of learning that dd displayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My middle brother is one of the VSL's who was misdiagnosed as ADHD as a result of a very bad "fit" in school environment. He is highly gifted and high energy, with a low tolerance for anything he considers to be "busywork". My parents were pressured by the public school into medicating him, but my brother would not take the meds on weekends and school vacations and he was fine. He just barely graduated high school by the skin of his teeth despite having high test scores. He stopped taking the meds completely after he finished high school, but went on to successfully complete a rigorous music technology bachelor's degree and have a good career as an audio engineer. He found his niche where he could use his strengths in music, math, and technology and a work environment where he's supposed to be moving around and fiddling with stuff rather than sitting quietly completing worksheets or listening to an instructor lecture.

 

So yes, I do think there is such a thing as "right-brained normal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do live in a left brain world, but why the expectation to be something they are not instead of being themselves?

 

There is a difference between doing therapies and interventions in order for them to fit into traditional approaches and using educational timelines and environments that fit right brained learners first to see if that enables them to learn.

 

Just because one learns differently, does not mean they are learning disabled.

 

There are many interpretations of “customizing and individualizing our kid’s studies”, many of which are not right brained approaches.

 

Children need to spend more time developing their strengths and passions than they do in therapy, intervention, and working on weaknesses.

 

It’s the child’s strengths and passions that make them whole and are the keys to their future.

 

Children are born being quite comfortable in their own skin. That fades away because instead of being inspired to be themselves, they are asked to conform to left brain mindsets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do live in a left brain world, but why the expectation to be something they are not instead of being themselves?

 

There is a difference between doing therapies and interventions in order for them to fit into traditional approaches and using educational timelines and environments that fit right brained learners first to see if that enables them to learn.

 

Just because one learns differently, does not mean they are learning disabled.

 

There are many interpretations of “customizing and individualizing our kid’s studies”, many of which are not right brained approaches.

 

Children need to spend more time developing their strengths and passions than they do in therapy, intervention, and working on weaknesses.

 

It’s the child’s strengths and passions that make them whole and are the keys to their future.

 

Children are born being quite comfortable in their own skin. That fades away because instead of being inspired to be themselves, they are asked to conform to left brain mindsets.

 

The public school system and local/state governments set the standards. Quite frankly, left-brain teaching takes less time, money, and effort. Really, how difficult is it to have kids sit in classroom all day, memorize by rote, and do sheet work?

 

Compare that with class of 30 children. Have a teacher pass out a bag of c-rods to each child with the intention of teaching them basic addition. Imagine the little white c-rods flying across the room. A right-brained kid would be building some sort of flying catapult contraption from a Bic pen, a pink eraser, and metal paper clip. That kid would miss recess or be labeled a troublemaker over that lesson.

 

I agree that ideally all kids should be taught to their brain dominance. The standards would have to be on a sliding scale, and left-brain parents would go insane. Chicago Math is one case that comes to mind.

 

This is why I love homeschooling so much. I wish there was a manual that said teach right-brainers this way. My left brain struggles everyday. Truly, we love our kids and want to support, not crush them.

 

ETA: We've never met, but I love each and every one of you on the SN board.

Edited by Heathermomster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The public school system and local/state governments set the standards.

 

This is why I love homeschooling so much. I wish there was a manual that said teach right-brainers this way. My left brain struggles everyday. Truly, we love our kids and want to support, not crush them.

 

 

I know everyone here loves their children and is trying to do the best with their current understanding and the resources they have available.

 

What price does society pay and what are the emotional costs that come into play when right brained children are forced to conform to left brained standards?

 

I will not sacrifice who my children were meant to be nor my relationship with them in order to conform.

 

Do you think many of the "troubled youth", may actually be right brained? How would things be different if they were valued and treated with respect for who they are from an early age? No answer needed, just things to ponder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The public school system and local/state governments set the standards. Quite frankly, left-brain teaching takes less time, money, and effort. Really, how difficult is it to have kids sit in classroom all day, memorize by rote, and do sheet work?

 

Compare that with class of 30 children. Have a teacher pass out a bag of c-rods to each child with the intention of teaching them basic addition. Imagine the little white c-rods flying across the room. A right-brained kid would be building some sort of flying catapult contraption from a Bic pen, a pink eraser, and metal paper clip. That kid would miss recess or be labeled a troublemaker over that lesson.

 

I agree that ideally all kids should be taught to their brain dominance. The standards would have to be on a sliding scale, and left-brain parents would go insane. Chicago Math is one case that comes to mind.

 

This is why I love homeschooling so much. I wish there was a manual that said teach right-brainers this way. My left brain struggles everyday. Truly, we love our kids and want to support, not crush them.

 

ETA: We've never met, but I love each and every one of you on the SN board.

 

I'm realizing that part of my problem in relating to some of this is that I never really experienced much of what people think of as the left-brained world of school. I was part of the open-classroom experiments of the 1970's. I don't remember textbooks or sitting in rows at desks until much later in my school career. We had "stations" where we worked alone or with a parter on our own terms. We sat on rugs in small groups discussing, we curled up on sofas, we perched on stools and wrote stories on tables that looked like huge spools that once held telephone wire. We did lots of hands-on stuff. I'd say mostly hands of stuff. We went outside exploring in the woods. On field trips, where we went off in small groups to the middle of nowhere with just a compass. I don't really remember having tests or homework until algebra. And there was no emphasis on standardized tests either.

 

In our local public schools, I have run into a couple of obvious left-brained types and those years were miserable for my oldest dd. Now I'm careful to tell the powers-that-be what personalities work best with my one who is in school, and they have always complied with my requests. My dd did was in fourth last year and she spent more time on hands-on projects and activities, by herself, with a partner, and in small groups, than they did on desk work and worksheets. I didn't see worksheets very much. Usually, we get math tests back and their writing projects at the end of the week and that's about it. Sometimes we would see binders of social studies and science activities come home. (This dd LOVES school and will have the same teacher this year. He was moving up, and I wrote a letter telling the principal how my daughter blossomed and gained so much confidence with this teacher. And guess what? She got him again. And my friends ask who I had to bribe to get him twice. :) )

 

Our school does use Everyday Math, which clicked with my oldest, but not as much with my younger ones. They spend about 90 minutes on math each day, and in the early years most of it is activity-based using manipulatives, geo-boards, and games. The written work is very limited, and for some of that they use a hand-held white board with markers and old socks on their hands for erasing.

 

We do face a lot of pressure on writing and then there's the stress placed on standardized tests for several weeks of the year. The expectations are high and the rubrics in all subject areas are intense and definitely not developmentally appropriate, which causes all kind of anxiety. That's where the real problems lie, not necessarily in the methods which can vary with the teacher.

 

ETA: We never have thirty students in a class. I don't know if we've ever hit twenty.

Edited by NJKelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pressures we feel consciously and subconsciously impact that view more than we realize.

 

Because my children ARE doing things...lots of things...meaningful and educational things...as they wait on their learning style time frame for certain other skills to develop. It's about rearranging the order and method of learning, that's all.

 

It's not easy as a parent to trust our instincts and de-traditionalize ourselves. Especially when that means going against what mainstream says is "the only acceptable" way to go. People define each other on what they have or produce. Often the right brained parents have a full heart, but the results do not show up until much later. The right brained population is increasing. Right brained children are being told what they find meaningful doesn't count academically and that they are less than or defective because they are unable to learn in a left brain manner.

 

I thank you for giving these children a voice and promoting a better understanding of the need for right brainer's approach to fit them so they are able to learn. I also love your title as there can be more than one way to do something. It's not that left brainers are normal and right brainers are learning disabled, they are simply different, not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say I have learned a lot from this discussion. I don't think this is a case of "us vs them" as in moms on this board vs another perspective on how to best meet the needs of our kids. I think all ideas should be welcomed here. We all have the best interests of our children at heart.

 

Cindy, I look forward to reading your book and I hope you have felt welcome here and that you will stick around or pop in to share what you have learned over the years on how to reach our kids in another way. I for one really struggle with thinking outside the box with my two kids. I need all the help I can get as I am not ready, in spite of a LOT of outside pressures, to give up on my kids and turn them over to any school system. Thank you and all of the moms on this board for all you share here so willingly and unselfishly. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Important words here, Michele! Left-brained children get to be surrounded in their strengths at the important strengths-building years of 5-7 years old. Right-brained children don't. But most people choose a career based on their strengths, not their weaknesses. Thus, strengths should be the foundation of learning, and weaknesses are addressed as they impact strengths, at the appropriate developmental stage. My children with significant differences never viewed themselves through their weaknesses, but through their strengths.

 

I do really believe as you say about children being naturally comfortable in their own skin. The pressures we feel consciously and subconsciously impact that view more than we realize. I have raised two different gene pools (adopted my youngest two), and in each set of gene pools, I had late readers, for instance (10, 12, and 14), but none of them felt bad about it at all. But I really monitored my views on it and those they associated with. They still had plenty of strengths to rest their confidence on besides reading, or whatever other skill needed a longer time frame to develop based on their learning style. Because my children ARE doing things...lots of things...meaningful and educational things...as they wait on their learning style time frame for certain other skills to develop. It's about rearranging the order and method of learning, that's all.

 

It's been a beautiful thing to witness in my life over and over with my children, as well as in the life of others.

 

I agree with your words... to a point. When my middle child was clearly dyslexic, I was relieved that with homeschooling, he could easily see his strengths and we could work on his weaknesses without the labels. However this didn't entirely allow him to miss feeling bad about late reading. When his younger sister could read the subtitles on a movie he really wanted to see and understand, but he couldn't; when the other kids could figure out what dressing room their hockey team was to use, but he couldn't without asking for help; though he knew he had strengths they lacked, and that they, too, had weaknesses, it was still an issue.

 

Compared to most on this board, we are very laid back, and certainly not hung up on a traditional scope and sequence for acquiring reading and writing skills. But that doesn't mean it's all sunshine and roses; and it doesn't mean that we don't pursue intervention if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be interesting if our schools were right-brained focused instead, and those of us who are left-brained may struggle and be labeled and wonder what's wrong with how we learn.

 

:iagree: I couldn't agree more. I am definitely right-brain challenged and am thankful that no one - outside my family that is - calls me mechanically disabled, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your words... to a point. When my middle child was clearly dyslexic, I was relieved that with homeschooling, he could easily see his strengths and we could work on his weaknesses without the labels. However this didn't entirely allow him to miss feeling bad about late reading. When his younger sister could read the subtitles on a movie he really wanted to see and understand, but he couldn't; when the other kids could figure out what dressing room their hockey team was to use, but he couldn't without asking for help; though he knew he had strengths they lacked, and that they, too, had weaknesses, it was still an issue.

Compared to most on this board, we are very laid back, and certainly not hung up on a traditional scope and sequence for acquiring reading and writing skills. But that doesn't mean it's all sunshine and roses; and it doesn't mean that we don't pursue intervention if possible.

 

The bolding is mine :)

 

I agree with you here! My DS is active in many outside interests- especially scouts. He is VERY aware of his den mates reading their assignments and he can't and how he differs at Den Meetings. He wants to take part in the skits but can't read the parts. Its heartbreaking.

 

So, while our HS experience caters to his strengths, the outside world with peers does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree: I couldn't agree more. I am definitely right-brain challenged and am thankful that no one - outside my family that is - calls me mechanically disabled, lol.

 

I like this, too. My mom laughs at me and tells me I am the lone left-brainer in our entire family. It does seem true, but when I looked again at the list of attributes of right-brained people, it's hard to say I'm strictly left-brained. As a child, I was definitely outside-the-box.

Edited by NJKelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...