Reading Disability as a Condition of Family Stability

Miller, Daniel R.; Westman, Jack C.

doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1964.00066.x

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the evidence supplied by Miller and Westman (1964) is highly subjective, as it tends to be for all clinical studies, the commonalities they observed across their families are nevertheless interesting. They found numerous instances of parental action, usually unconscious, that served to reinforce the reading problem even when those same parents were working very hard to help the child overcome his reading difficulty.…”

Section: Family Systems and School Problems: Some Clinical Evidencementioning

confidence: 96%

“…From a family systems perspective, the kinds of change that are of major concern extend beyond those in the targeted behaviors in the identified client to the correlated actions of other family members. In this vein, Miller and Westman (1964) observed a number of instances where serious substitute problems emerged as the reading skills of the children improved:…”

Section: Family Systems and School Problems: Some Clinical Evidencementioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The functional role of school problems in a child's family

1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Family Systems and School Problems: Some Clinical Evidencementioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Family Systems and School Problems: Some Clinical Evidencementioning

confidence: 96%

The functional role of school problems in a child's family

1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…An additional problematic solution is the separation of students from their "able" peers, with the resultant somatization (Goffman, 1963), frustration (Bart, 1984;Hobbs, 1975), and loss of motivation to learn (McDermott, 1974;Ogbu, 1986) -an issue that has been explored under such diverse headings as learned helplessness (Dweck, 1976), locus of control (Chapman & Boersma, 1979), and learning the art of being stupid (Miller & Westman, 1964;Peck, 1971). …”

Section: How Have the Solutions Become The Problems?mentioning

confidence: 98%

An Ecological Response to Coles's Interactivity Alternative

Bartoli

1989

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A s the number of children diagnosed as learning disabled (LD) doubles and triples in many areas of our country, bringing with it the heat of parental, teacher, specialist, administrator, and student frustration, confusion, and more than occasional adversarial relationships, it is comforting to hear the cool, reasoned, thoroughly documented voice of Gerald Coles. Just as no one has equaled or substantively refuted his unprecedented dissection of the LD test battery (Coles, 1978), it is doubtful that many could match his in-depth analysis of LD theory, research, history, and practice as presented in The Learning Mystique (Coles, 1987). Coles not only examines the problematic solutions to what he describes as an incorrectly defined problem, but he wisely points us toward a broader view of both the problem and the solution: a view that is congruent with an ecological approach toward change in the present system of both special and regular education.In the present reaction to Coles's book, I will comment on the central issues that I believe make the book a cornerstone for what should become a new way of looking at both LD and learning in general. I will conclude with several additional issues that need to be addressed to provide a base for a much-needed transformation of the American education system to better meet the needs of all students in our culturally diverse democracy. The first set of issues includes (a) who is labeled, (b) why they are labeled, (c) how they are helped, and (d) how the solutions have become the problem. The issues for change are (a) what real learning is, (b) how we can best use our present resources to transform the system, and (c) what a collaborative, ecological approach can contribute to the change process. CENTRAL ISSUES Who Is Labeled?Although, as Coles explains, LD began as a label to account for the learning failures of middle class children, it has since become increasingly used with disproportionate numbers of poor and minority students (Bartoli & Botel, 1988;Cummins, 1986;Lytle, 1988). From studies for the Council of Great Cities Schools (a consortium of the nation's largest urban school districts) Lytle (1988) reports that 10 of the 14 cities had disproportionately high percentages of minority students in their LD programs, although minority students are most grossly overrepresented in classes for students with mental retardation (MR).Due process suits may achieve only the limited objective of changing the classification of students (MR to LD, or LD to socially/emotionally disturbed [SED]) rather than reducing the total number of labeled students. Lytle (1988) also reports that less than 2°7o of the students placed in special education ever return to regular education, and he argues that the Education for All Handicapped Children Act has "^institutionalized racism through a new tracking system with the force of federal law and the pretense of science (diagnose, classify, prescribe)" (p. 119).In my own longitudinal research with students labeled as LD, the labels have been changed...

show abstract

“…Research on family systems of educational underachievers (Miller & Westman, 1964;1966) has studied problem readers who, like the children in the studies under discussion, seemed fairly well adjusted, were not antisocial or acting out, were sensitive, and had friends. Also similar to the above research, the families appeared stable and concerned.…”

Section: Family Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evaluation of Genetic Explanations of Reading and Learning Problems

Coles

1980

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the end of the last century there have been studies of reading and learning problems which have concluded that a considerable proportion of these difficulties are inherited. This conclusion has been reaffirmed in recent investigations and explications of reading and learning "disabilities." Evidence for a heritability explanation has come from two sources: family and twin studies. An examination of these studies, however, demonstrates that although they appear to use the "scientific method" and are replete with quantified analysis, in fact they offer little substantial evidence for their conclusions. Moreover, they violate principles of logic and hypothesis testing to such an extent that they must be considered to be not merely inadequately scientific, but, indeed, pseudoscientific. Unfortunately, lack of evidence and egregious conclusions have not prevented the dissemination of heritability explanations among professionals and the public.Genetic interpretations of human characteristics and behavior abound today. There are genetic explanations of relatively delimited social areas, such as poverty, crime, and madness, as well as interpretations of immense topics relating to the evolution of the human social order. So numerous are these genetic interpretations that it is probably impossible to find a field concerned with people that does not include genetic explanations of its subject. The field of education certainly is not an exception.Within education is a long history of genetic explanations seeking to elucidate academic achievement in certain children and underachievement in others. Several years ago the center stage of genetic explanations in education was held by Arthur Jensen, with his interpretation of intelligence and IQ scores. The argument, resurrected by Jensen, that the genetic tranmission of intelligence determines academic success has, of course, always been the predominant genetic explanation within education. Now that it once again appears to have diminished in credibility, despite Jensen's recent book on IQ (Jensen, 1979), there is reason to feel heartened. However, in appraising the currency of genetic explanations in education, it is important to recognize not only that the heritability-of-IQ position still has considerable influence but also that while it has been the primary genetic theory in education, it has never been the only one. Alongside it, since the end of the last century, has been an associated explanation that, while not purporting to explain academic achievement with the broad strokes of the IQ theorists, nevertheless claims to explain the academic failure of a considerable proportion of youngsters. This genetic explanation lies within the academic areas of reading and learning disabilities; judging at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on June 26, 2015 sed.sagepub.com Downloaded from

show abstract

Reading Disability as a Condition of Family Stability

Cited by 27 publications

References 6 publications

The functional role of school problems in a child's family

The functional role of school problems in a child's family

An Ecological Response to Coles's Interactivity Alternative

Evaluation of Genetic Explanations of Reading and Learning Problems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About