I spent the next hour concentrating hard on Joey, noting all the things that were right with him. First of all, he was an appealing boy – his thick shock of red hair plus freckles and a wide mouth and slightly asymmetrical face made him look like the kid on the cornflakes box. His movements were quick and graceful, and I liked the way he got interested and involved when I showed him how things worked. I liked his laugh. I liked the information he had stored up. He knew that his dad worked in a bank and that his dad’s name was Al. His mother’s name was Gail, and she ran computers. He knew his two older brothers’ names and ages and that the reason he didn’t have any pets was because his mother said he was “lergic.”
I liked the way he understood about the chips, which I used as a reward system, immediately comprehending which colour was worth how much. I liked the independence with which he took over. “No. Don’t tell me which colours I earned,” Joey said halfway through our first session. “Just how much. I can figure it out.”
Joey pulled the old cigar box that held the chips close to him and studied the list on the back cover of the box. “Oranges are five, blues ten,” he said out loud, “reds are twenty, greens are twenty-five, yellows are fifty, and these silver ones are worth a hundred each, right?”
“Right.”
“Are the silvers real?”
“Yes, they’re fifty-cent pieces. My dad collected them. I put them in with the other chips to make it more interesting. All this testing can get to be pretty dull stuff, so at the end of our time you count up the chips I’ve paid you and then decide if you want to spend for something little or save for something bigger. You buy stuff from the basket – stickers, balls, pens – things like that. I’ll show you when we’re through.”
I didn’t say it out loud, but chips can also help keep a child from getting too discouraged. Most tests have “ceilings,” and when a child misses three or four questions in a row, the test ends. So in the course of an hour’s evaluation, a child may “fail” a dozen times or more – and most of the children I see are smart enough to know when they’re wrong. Shoulders slump. Heads droop. But if I pay at the end of each test, counting up the answers by fives or tens, adding a fifty or so, and say something like “Pay yourself one hundred eighty-five,” shoulders straighten and heads perk up like flowers after a summer rain. As the child’s pile of chips grows, his confidence grows along with it. I may be skewing a few statistics, but I’m seeing the child at his optimum, and that’s what’s important to me.
Every once in a while I’d ask Joey a bonus question like “Why do you think you’re here, Joey? I ask all the kids that.”
“’Cause I’ve got a lot of problems.” Joey’s voice was barely audible.
“What kind of problems?”
Joey shrugged. “I don’t know. I think maybe there’s something wrong with my head.”
And Joey was right, in a way. There was something wrong with his head. The federal government has defined “learning disabilities” in Public Law 94–142 (the Education of All Handicapped Act) as follows:
Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
The Association for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities states, “Each child with a learning disability is unique; each shows a different combination and severity of problems – each has one or more significant deficits in the essential learning processes and is considered to have near average or above average intelligence.”
Most of the children I work with have a learning disability that is known as a specific language disability – dyslexia. The Orton Dyslexia Society, which promotes the understanding, treatment, and prevention of the problems of dyslexia, suggests that while some people have a natural talent for learning their native language and learn to read and write and express their thoughts clearly in the early years of school or even before, most of us must work much harder and need more teaching.
Some (the Orton Society says as many as 10 percent of us) find this learning exceptionally difficult – so difficult that it can get in the way of progress in personal growth.
The dyslexic child can’t learn and remember whole words, so he doesn’t learn to read when he is taught by a whole-word or “see and say” approach. He often cannot even remember letters themselves and twists b and d around. He has difficulty retrieving the words he needs in order to say what he wants to say: “Can I borrow the … you know, the thing you cut with?” Or words come out wrong sometimes: “bermembered” for “remembered” or “basgetti” for “spaghetti.” He may read “united” as “untied” and “nuclear” as “unclear.”
Math difficulties, the Orton Society says, are now included as another part of dyslexia; math is another language that needs remembering and managing. A child with dyslexia has difficulty with overall organization – he loses his sneakers, his homework, and his sense of direction. Other members of the dyslexic’s family through the generations probably had similar difficulties.
Dyslexia is not a disease but a kind of mind, often a very gifted mind. There have been many famous dyslexics – Thomas Edison, Woodrow Wilson, Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Nelson Rockefeller, Cher, and Bruce Jenner among them. A child, or even an adult, with a dyslexic mind can learn. He or she (though four times more often he) just needs more help and must be taught in a systematic, sequential way, using strengths, minimizing weaknesses, and helping him or her achieve success. Experts agree this child can learn to read, to write legibly, to spell passably well, and to put his or her thoughts into clear, understandable spoken or written words.
Children with learning disabilities, or dyslexia, or learning differences, as some of my colleagues put it, have very real and important problems that deserve study, effort, and understanding. The labels don’t really matter; the children do. We can help them – and we know how. These are children who can succeed if they are given the chance.
By the time I had finished my four diagnostic sessions I had found a lot more things to like about Joey. He had even more going for him than I had suspected. He was far, far brighter than the average seven-year-old. Mrs. Stone had given me a copy of the Child Study Team report, and there the school psychologist had written that Joey’s “Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient on the Wechsler was in the average range.” This was true; the full-scale score was average, but it didn’t begin to tell the whole story. There were enormous differences in Joey’s subtest scores, ranging from a high 98th percentile in Vocabulary to a low 2nd percentile in Block Design. When there are tremendous peaks and valleys of this kind, the child is almost always much brighter than his full-scale score shows. To average out subtest scores is like averaging the temperatures at Death Valley to seventy degrees when in actuality it’s sometimes one hundred forty degrees during the day and zero degrees at night.
Unlike many learning disabled children, Joey’s receptive and expressive word knowledge was large and rich. When asked what a nail was, he replied, “It’s a construction material – you hammer it in like this.”