Learning Disabilities Essay

Puzzling is the circumstance teachers usage to describe assimilators with goldbricking disabilities. They tell us that these students run across entirely normal, seem intelligent, carry on intelligent conversations that they outweart calculate to any distinct than otherwise students. Yet these students subscribe to hassle doing certain projections non all- in disciplinedayshouse. Some open impediment see others perform inadequately in recite still others take in frequent mistakes in math. Teachers in or so inculcates tell us that these students argon genuinely hard to teach that they simply do not learn in the alike(p) agencys or as easily as others their age. They tell us that these students redeem picky needs and be not easy to teach in large classes in which roughly other students perform reasonably well. They tell us that modifying instruction so that these students coffin nail profit from tenet is an intricate influence.Beca utilisation of the heterogeneous nature of this concourse of electric s endurerren, the purpose of specific instruct disabilities has been hard to define or describe in hardly a(prenominal) sentence or by a numerical fall guy much(prenominal) as an IQ or by a hahnium loss. Further much than, beca exercise the field has been of interest to educators, psychologists, psychiatrists, neurophysiologists, pediatricians, ophthalmologists, optometrists, oral communication pathologists, and others, the problem has been mickleed in each of those discip casts from varied perspectives. Hence at that place is really the need for whatsoever(prenominal) comments for development disabilities and then we skunk conclude that its explanation is delimit in dis run away case to case basis.Definition of learnedness DisabilitiesHistori look fory, the following bourns were utilise to name youngsterren with acquirement disabilities perceptually handicapped brain injured neurologically impaire dThen, there came twain broad aspects of concern in defining and or identifying those baberenbiological etiology- stripped-down brain dysfunction, psych whizzurological study disorders.conduct develop cordial disparity in psychological processes, developmental im easeThe interpretation of schooling disabilities in an commandal pre delay has derived its heritage from neurology psychology speech pathology ophthalmology remedial interlingual rendition Wiederholt (1984) has traced the score of Learning dis force and has delineated three dimensions of disorders namely(1) disorders of the verbalise linguistic process analyse in the beginning by neurologists andophthalmologists such(prenominal) as Samuel Kirk develop a test, the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, for use in describing language military ope symmetryn and developing remedial programs.disorders of create verbally language represented intimatelyly by psychologists, speech pathologists, and educat ors such as Grace Fernald constituted a clinic at UCLA where she perfected remedial reading and spelling techniques.disorders of perceptual and repulse behaviors studied mostly by a figure of disciplines such as Goldstein, Werner and Strauss as pi cardinalers of the field which listed thefollowing behavioral characteristics that differentiated amongst those with andthose without brain injuries lush motor activity, hyperactivity,awkwardness and consistently brusk motor performance, erratic behavior, pitiableorganization, high distractibility and faulty perceptions (like reversals) and Samuel Orton was a neurologist who believed that insufficiency of cerebral lateralisation was a cause of language disorders. (In normal respective(prenominal) either the go away or right side of the brain has dominance in compulsory specific functions.) Cruickshank focused his efforts on the study of brain-injured children, specifically children with cerebral palsy. Getman, Marianne Frostig, untriedell Kephart, and jibe Barsch focused on the correlation of perceptual disorders and developed remedial procedures ranging from optometric meat exercises, tracing and copying types, and differentiating figure from back object in a puzzle, to qualification angels in the snow. Today, there be various provinces in Canada that commit established programs for information disabilities which was instituted for example by The Ontario Ministry of statement Saskatchewan Department of Education Halifax get along with of Education and Quebec Ministry of Education exclusively the most widely used definitions is the ane incorporated by theLearning Disabilities Association of Canada or LDAC (2002) which state that, the termLearning Disabilities refer to a number of disorders which whitethorn arrogate theacquisition, organization, retention, reasonableness or use of verbal or nonverbalinformation. These disorders affect makement in individuals who otherwisedemonstrate at leas t average abilities inwrought for thinking and/or reasoning. Assuch, cultivation disabilities are distinct from spherical intellectual deficiency.Learning disabilities result from impairments in 1 or more processes related toperceiving, thinking, remembering or knowledge. These imply, however are not restrictto language touch on phonological processing optical spatial processingprocessing speed memory and attention and executive functions (e.g. planningand decision-making).Further, LDAC mentioned that knowledge disabilities range in severity and may interfere with the acquisition and use of one or more of the followingoral language (e.g. listening, speaking, arrest)reading (e.g. decoding, phonetic knowledge, word recognition, comprehension)written language (e.g. spelling and written impartion) andmathematics (e.g. computation, problem solving).Further, the U.S. Department of Education regulation further states that a student has a specific acquirement dis efficacy ifthe student does not get to at the proper age and ability levels in oneor more of several specific areas when provided with appropriate discipline experiencesthe student has a severe discrepancy amongst achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of these seven areas (a) oral expression, (b) listening comprehension, (c) written expression, (d) basic reading skill, (e) reading comprehension, (f) mathematics calculation, and (g) mathematics reasoning.To summarize, all these definitions of tuition disabilities, it includes the following major modelsThe individual has a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes. (These processes refer to intrinsic demand abilities, such as memory, auditory perception, ocular perception, oral language, and thinking.)The individual has barrier in nurture, specifically, in speaking, listening, committal to writing,reading (word-recognition skills and comprehension), and mathematics (calculation and reasoning.)The problem i s not primarily due to other causes, such as visual or comprehendimpairments motor handicaps mental retardation emotional disturbance or economic, environmental, or cultural disadvantage.A severe discrepancy exists between the students evident effectiveness for development and his or her low level of achievement. In other words, there is evidence of underachievement. The various definitions of instruction disabilities arrest several elements in crudeneurological dysfunctionuneven growth pattern hassle in academic and larn assignsdiscrepancy between potential and achievementexclusion of other causes Identification of Learning DisabilitiesIn identifying individuals with skill disabilities, the following popular characteristics must be observed Disorders of attention Hyperactivity, distractibility, poor concentration ability, short attention span scummy motor abilities Poor fine and gross motor coordination, general awkwardness and clumsiness, spatial problems perceptual an d information processing problems Difficulty in discrimination of auditory and visual stimuli, auditory and visual closure, and sequencing Oral language concentratedies Problems in listening, speaking, vocabulary, and linguistic competencies chastisement to develop and mobilize cognitive strategies for learning Lack of organization, active learning set, metacognitive functions Reading difficulties Problems in decoding, basic reading skills, and reading comprehension indite language difficulties Problems in spelling, handwriting, and written composition Mathematics difficulties Difficulty in quantitative thinking, arithmetic, time, space, and calculation facts and Inappropriate hearty behavior Problems in friendly skills deficits, emotional problems, and establishing social relationships. in that location are also other applicatory classification schemes that are useful(1) the academic learning disabilities ( reading, arithmetic, handwriting, spelling, and written expression)(2 ) the developmental learning disabilities ( attention, memory, perceptual skills,thinking skills, and oral language skills)A roughly more formatic way to look at characteristics of students with learning disabilities is to look at those factors referenced in screening devices. The following outline reflects the types of difficulties practically observed in learning alter students(1) importantly different class room behaviors obstruction in beginning or finishing tasksdifficulty in organizinginconsistent in behaviordifficulty in peer relationships(2) signifi firetly below-average performance in auditory comprehension and listeningdifficulty in following poseionsdifficulty in comprehending or following class discussions softness to retain information received aurallydifficulty in understanding or comprehending word meanings(3) signifi dismisstly below-average performance in spoken languageuse of incomplete sentences or unusual number of grammatical errorsuse of immature or improp er vocabulary or very(prenominal) express mail vocabularydifficulty in recalling words for use in self-expressiondifficulty relating isolated facts, scattered ideasdifficulty in relating ideas in logical chronological achievemention(4) signifi cornerstonet academic problemsdifficulty in reading fluencydifficulty in associating numbers with symbolsincorrect ordering of letters in spelling admiration of manuscript and cursive writingavoidance of readingconfusion of math concepts rundown, multiplication(5) orientation difficultiespoor time concept, no clench of meaning of timedifficulty in navigating around building or school groundspoor understanding of relationships (big, little, far, close, under, on, near) inability to learn solicitudes (north, south, left, right)motor disabilities or significant underdevelopment for agepoor coordinationvery poor balanceawkward, poorly developed manipulative or manual dexteritylack of rhythm in movementsIII. Intervention for Learning Disabil ities. This knowledge of the characteristics of learning modify students is one basis for intervention. Thus, we induct seen that children with learning disabilities compose quite a diverse conference. It should be no surprise then to find that the learn and strategies uprisees designed to armed service those children are also quite a diverse. But it is possible to cluster the various approaches into three broad schoolingal strategiestask training, in which the emphasis is on the sequencing and simplication of the task to be learned. Ysseldyke and Salvia (1984) have advanced tow theoretical ensamples namely (a) analyzing the childs abilities and disabilities and (b) analyzing the task and the direct training of the terminal behavior or task.This view is back up by behavioral analysts who advocate (1) finding out what the child can and cannot do in a particular skill, (2) determining whether or not the child has the behaviors needed to succeed in the task, (3) defining the g oals in discernible hurt, and (4) organizing a arrangementic remedial program using reinforcement techniques. The employ behavior analysts do not infer processes or abilities that underlie difficulties further rely solely on the childs interactional history and the on-line(prenominal) behavior and environmental situation. They feel that their approach, which is task oriented and observable, is the most parsimonious approach, and to some it is the plainly approach needed.ability or process training, in which the focus is on the cure and simplification of the task to be learned.Quay (1983) discussed the relative efficacy of ability or process training. He say that three approaches to remediation have evolved (1) remediating a disability so that learning give be facilitated at a later date, (2) training and ability or process for its own sake, and (3) direct training of the task. He concludes that the direct instruction method (task training) should be tried frontmost and t hen toss out in favor of other methods if direct instruction is not victorful.ability or process-task training, in which the first two approaches are combined and corporate into one remedial program.Raschke and Young (1986) suffer this approach. They compared the behavior analysis model with the diagnostic-prescriptive model. They state that neither approach alone has the answer and propose what they call a dialectic-teaching approach into one system. Essentially the model assesses the abilities and disabilities of the children (intraindividual diffences), makes task analyses of the skills to be learned, and prescribes remediation in the functions and skills to be developed. This dialectic system they maintain permits the teacher to assess, program, instruct, and evaluate the childs psycholinguistic characteristics in the same system as his skill competencies and consequential variables.Hence, the task of developing a definition of learning disabilities erectd to be a formid able challenge. Indeed, defining this population is considered such an overwhelming task that some have likened learning disabilities to jurist Potter Stewarts comment on pornography impossible to define, barely I know it when I see it.Thus, defining learning disabilities in a way acceptable to all has keep as a debatable issue since the inception of the field. Although a number of definitions have been generated and used over the years, each has been judged by some to have some shortcomings. There are many types of disabilities, each of which may require a droll diagnosis and a unique remedial method.POSITION PAPER The definitions of learning disabilities are numerous and so varied that it is difficult to present taxonomy or even a specific list of these different definitions. The definition of learning disabilities is a problem in much of the nations without the world. This problem first came out when some parents in the United States became concerned because their children w ho were not learning in school were rejected from finicky command since they were not mentally mentally retarded, deaf or blind, or otherwise handicapped. Their children were called by various names such as neurologically handicapped, brain-injured, aphasodic, dyslexic, and perceptually handicapped.In spite of its current far-flung use, the term learning disability is vulnerable to misunderstanding and misuse. The condition is difficult to define operationally since the designation learning disability is an umbrella term for a shape of deviations that are not included in traditionalistic categories of exceptional children. Also it has been confused with general learning problems that are common to some degree in most children. In addition, it has been misused to include nurtureal retardation, which is found in slow learning children and in children who have not learned because of poor teaching or absence from school. other(prenominal) vulnerability of the term comes from the difficulty in drawing an explicit line between normal and abnormal. Some allowances must be made for biological and psychological diversity, and considerable variation in abilities is accepted as normal.So, the foreland now is, If there are objections to the term learning disabilities, why use it? Why not use some other term? swell up and good, if a better term can be found. Other cost are either too specific or too broad. Dyslexia for example, provided refers to severe reading disability and it is not the only learning disability. consciousness injury has little or no educational relevance. Perceptual handicaps fend off children with language disorders.Hence, the label learning disability has evolved to encompass the heterogeneous free radical of children not fitting neatly into the traditional categories of handicapped children. And that, substantial number of children show retardation in learning to talk, do not acquire other communication skill, do not develop normal vis ual or auditory perception, or great difficulty in learning to read, to spell, to write, or to make arithmetic calculations. Some of them even, are not receptive to language but are not deaf, some are not able to perceive visually but are not blind, and some cannot learn by ordinary of method of instruction but are not mentally retarded. Although such children are from a heterogeneous group and fail to learn for diverse reasons, they have one thing in common they do not perform as well in school as they could.Discussing the problem and the difficulties of names for these children, Kirk (1963) explained that sometimes classification labels exclude our thinking. He further say that it is better to state that a child has not learned to read than to say the child is dyslexic. So he advised that the name should be functional. He purported further that since the parents were interested in service to their children, it might be preferable to use a term related to teaching or learning a nd that the term learning disability might be preferable over the currently used terms such as cerebral function and brain injured. The term learning disabilities were agreed by these parents and they consider it more appropriate since it implied teaching and learning and since they were interested primarily in service for their children.So, one of the major problems of definition is that a learning disability is not as obvious or homogenous as blindness or deafness. There are many types of disabilities, each of which may require a unique diagnosis and a remedial method may vary differently from another condition also termed a learning disability. It is no wonder that many students, teachers, and parents have become confused about the term learning disability and the characteristics of children so labeled. This confusion appears to be international and is illustrated by the remarks of a teacher who, in testifying to a government committee studying the subject (Learning Difficulties in Children and Adults, 1986), stated I find myself asking the following interrogations What does the term learning difficulty mean? Does the term learning difficulty mean the same as learning disability? How about the term dysfunction? What does the term borderline brain dysfunction mean? Do they all mean the same? Certainly, all these labels are not necessary, or are they? Does labeling a child with learning problems create more problems? It all becomes a bit puzzlingThe terminology changes very much, varies from state to state and from country to country.Out of these definitions, came my own definition of learning disability Learning disability describes a result quite a than the cause of the learning disability. Therefore, the conditions we call a learning disability is defined in terms of the students difficulties what he can and cannot do in school and focuses primarily on the academic performance. So, one cannot be labeled as learning disable if he has not and started formal schooling as the label learning disabled indicates that a student is having unusual learning difficulties and involves speculations to possible causes, but it specifically indicates that the primal cause cannot be a condition such as mental retardation, hearing or visual impairment, and so on.Learning disabilities should be identify in the formal school context. Thus, preschoolers should not be labeled as learning disabled as growth rates are so un harbingerable at young age, In addition, very young children who appear to have problems may be identified under a noncategorical label, such as developmentally delayed. For many children, learning disabilities first become apparent when they enter school and fail to acquire academic skills. The failure often occurs in reading, but also happens in mathematics, writing, or other school subjects. Among the behaviors frequently seen in the early elementary years are inability to attend and concentrate poor motor skills, as evidenced in the awkward handling of a pencil and in poor writing and difficulty in learning to read. In the later elementary years, as the curriculum becomes more difficult, problems may emerge in other areas, such as social studies or science. Emotional problems also become more of an impediment after several years of repeated failure, and students become more conscious of their poor achievement in comparison with that of their peers. For some students, social problems and inability to make and keep friends increase in importance at this age level.A radical change in schooling occurs at the secondary level, and adolescents find that learning disabilities begin to take a great toll. The tougher demands of the junior and senior high school curriculum and teachers, the turmoil of adolescence, and the continued academic failure may combine to intensify the learning disability. Adolescents are also concerned about life after completing school. They may need counseling and guidance for college, career, and vocational decisions. To worsen the situation, a few adolescents find themselves drawn into acts of juvenile delinquency. Because adolescents tend to be overly sensitive, some emotional, social, and self-concept problems often accompany a learning disability at his age. nigh secondary schools now have programs for adolescents with learning disabilities.Many teachers in Canada suggested that we supplant the label learning disability, and merge it with the emotionally disturbed and the educable mentally retarded and only deal with the child from an instructional point of view by defining learning tasks so that they can be taught step by step. I strongly contradictory with this suggestion. Though maybe it is possible for the child with severe learning disability, but this approach is not sufficient to mild learning disabilities students.This is one of the greatest sources of controversy about the identification issues. The question of how much academic and learning ret ardation is evidenced before an individual should be identified as learning disabled. Aside from identifying children with learning disability, it is very important to judge the extent of a childs learning disability as either mild or severe. Determining the level of severity is supportful in placement and in planning teaching delivery. I strongly suggest that students with mild learning disabilities should be presumption different remediation from those of students who have severe learning disabilities.At this point, it is very crucial to differentiate the two cases. Mild learning disabilities describe the problems of many students. Students with mild learning disabilities usually have a disability in just one or two areas of learning, and although they need supportive help and circumscribed teaching, they can probably get along at least for part of the day in the steady classroom. So, within the perpetual classroom, the fixing teachers should often make changes in instruct ion that exit benefit these students.On the other hand, students with sever learning disabilities pose a very different problem and they require quite different educational services. These students are promising to lag significantly in several areas of learning and to have concomitant social, emotional, or behavioral problems. They need the environment of a circumscribed(prenominal) classroom, should touch mainly with one teacher, and should be given special services for most of the day. Because of the intensity of their problems, the special class should be given fewer students than the rule-governed classroom. I suggest the 13 teacher to student ratio is the best to maximize and hasten the remediation process. However, students with severe learning disabilities can gradually be mainstreamed for special subjects or activities or dictated in the resource room, or even back in the mend classroom as their progress permits.Because of these definitions teachers, guidance counci lors, and other school personnel, play the biggest role in identifying, diagnosing, remediating or treating this kind of disability within the school context. So any teaching/service delivery should best fill the requirements needed to serve properly learning disabled students within the continuous classroom. Hence, learning disabled students should be treated or given remediation within the given school context with the greatest help of the unbendable classroom teacher but the guidance of the learning disabilities specialist. So, it is implied that each school should have a learning disabilities specialist.With this, a change in the administrative arrangements for the placement for instruction of children with learning disabilities is a must. It is important to take melodic phrase that in the past, the rapid growth of special education was in the direction of removing atypical children from the mainstream of standard classroom and placing them into special education programs. Even the invariable education supported this movement which maybe because the responsibility of educating children with a variety of learning problems is transferred to the domain of special education, and that would really lighten the snip reduce of regular teachers. But that should not be the case and I do not support that movement.The trend should be reversed and all students with learning disabilities should be brought back into the regular classroom with the regular students and in the men of the regular teacher with the help of the learning disabilities specialist. A number of movements and researches support this claim.The influential movement that supports this claim is the REI or the regular education world-class led by Madeline Will, the director of special education in the U.S. piece of Special Education in 1986. She stated that this initiative is designed to labor collaborative efforts among regular and special educators and shared responsibility (Will, 1986). In this initiative, regular and special educators were encouraged to pool their talents and coordinate their efforts in planning and teaching. I greatly support this initiative as the underlying premise of this concept is that students learning disabilities can be more successfully taught in the regular education classroom than in special education classes or resource room.By promoting the merging of special and regular education, the regular education initiative reflects a major change in the way students with learning disabilities are identified, assessed, and educated. The approach is supported by many special educators (Lloyd, Singh, & Repp, 1991 Maheady & Algozzine, 1991 Biklen & Zollers, 1986 Greer, 1988 Reynolds, Wang & Walberg, 1997). A specific example is, more than fifty years ago, Samuel Kirk, in his presidential address to special educators, emphasized that all teachers (regular and special educators) have the responsibility for teaching learning disabled children. Kirk imp lored that every teacher is a teacher of learning disabled children (Kirk, 1941). He further wrote the following in reality the education of exceptional children is not wholly the responsibility of any one group of teachers .It is hoped that in the future all special class teachers entrust not only be responsible for the education of children in their classroom, but willing take on the added responsibility of contributing their knowledge and special skill to the regular classroom teacher who (has0 many learning disabled children in (the) classroom. (Kirk, 1941)In 1968, Lloyd Dunn wrote an influential article about the benefits ofhaving special educators work with regular teachers in serving learning disabledchildren (Dunn, 1968).Another view to change the administrative arrangement in special education is to group children with different disabilities together for instruction. This categorical system in special education historically evolved as the field of special education deve loped. Each course of instruction of disability (such as visual impairment, hearing impairment, mental retardation, orthopedic disabilities, speech disorders, emotional disturbance, and learning disabilities) became established individually over the years when there was sufficient interest in that particular area of exceptionality. This concept emphasizes the common characteristics among students with disabilities and the common instructional methods for teaching students with various disabilities. In this system, students with learning disabilities, behavior disorders, and mental retardation are often grouped together.Some parents and special educators are concerned that children with learning disabilities might be lost in the shuffle of this kind of placement, if such classes become a dumping ground for students with a variety of unrelated problems. The resulting diversity of learning and behavior problems would immobilize teachers in helping students with learning disabilities. But this view is also opposed by a number of authors and has even provoked unusual levels of confusion, emotion, and turn within the special education community (Jehkins & Pious, 2001). Moreover, other special educators and parents, express concern regarding the regular education initiative movement and caution that more study is needed before making full-scale and far-reaching changes in procedures and policies that will affect the lives of students with learning disabilities (Lloyd et al., 1991 diary of Learning Disabilities, 1988 Cannon, 1988 Kaufman, Gerber, & Semmel, 1998 McKinney & Hocutt, 1988, Lerner, 1997).But these opposing views have no substance and should be disregarded altogether. Fuchs & Fuchs (2000) have conducted research on the perceptions of and attitudes toward the regular education initiative among both regular and special educators. These studies suggest that neither regular nor special education teachers are dissatisfied with the current special education de livery system. In fact, the teachers favored the resource room model over the consultant model. Many of the teachers saw no profit in the achievement levels for either special or regular education students as a result of the regular education initiative reforms. The success of the initiative depends on the support of regular and special teachers (Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, & Lesar, 1991 Coates, 1989). Moreover, the research prove that merely shifting the responsibility from the resource room teacher to the regular or a consultant is not enough to ensure the success of the reform.Hence, major policy changes in regular education profoundly affect students with learning disabilities. Several recent national study commissions on the poor quality of schools serving the learning disabled students. It is my fear that, most schools pursuit for academic excellence standards will left tin can students with learning disabilities or they will be the losers. Being unable to satisfy the educa tional standards set by the pursuit-of-excellence movement, some students with learning disabilities will be denied a high school diploma and thus be denied the prospect to complete their schooling. Further, if regular teachers are held accountable for the academic excellence of their students, they will be reluctant to accept the responsibility for hard-to-teach students. Some special educators predict that the push for excellence may serve to widen the schism between regular and special education (Pugach & Sapon-Shevin, 1997).Hence, it is my challenge to educators and healthcare professionals to undergo another education reform movement where school curriculum requirements for the learning disabled should be added to the current curriculum standards for the regular students. So in this recommendation for curriculum changes, a greater consideration should be given for the learning disabled students. But this should be within the context of the regular education curriculum.This ap proach is same with the integration of regular and special education. Some special educators also are now urging that the integration process should be taken much further that the current special education system should be drastically restructured and that regular and special education should be merged into a single system (Kauffman & Trent, 1991). Such educators cite several reasons for changing the current system. Special education, they maintain, is not effective when it occurs outside of the regular classroom. In addition, the physical separation of students with disabilities is demeaning and degrades instruction. These special educators maintain that integrated special education is more effective than separate programs.So the delivery options for teaching students with learning disabilities should also include regular classes and resource room classes. This approach is concomitant to the observation that successful adults with disabilities have learned to function substantia lly in society as it exists an unrestricted environment composed of all people. To promote experiences in the greater society, it must be ensured that, to the extent appropriate, students with disabilities should have experiences in school with regular (or non-special education) students.Since society includes the family, parents too should not be forgotten as an important element in the entire complex. fires are a vital component in the students education. These parents of children with learning disabilities need help in accepting their situation. Mental health professionals should help make parents be aware that the problem must be face both by the child and by other members of the family. In addition to an honest acceptance of the disability, there must be recognition that progress is often a slow process.So any approach concerning children with learning disability should establish healthy parental attitudes and ensure parent-teacher cooperation is of course, very necessary. P arent support groups and family counseling are effective in assisting parents understand their children and their problems and in finding ways to help their children within the home. In addition, parent-teacher conference can become a bridge between the home and school and can involve parents in the educational process.Learning disabilities is now at a crossroads, as it seems to have been throughout its thirty-year history. Many innovative ideas are only in their beginning stages and will develop more fully in the years to come.The approach I suggested as discussed in this paper is one of those ideas. It is very important for this approach that more students with learning disabilities are served through regular education. In addition, there should be more collaboration between special and regular educators. A consequence of all of these shifts is that the responsibilities of learning disabilities teachers will change to meet the new demands.ReferencesBush, W., and Giles, M.(1979). A ids to Psycholinguistic Teaching. Columbus, Ohio Charles E. Merrill.Clements, S. (1986). Minimal conceiver Dysfunction in Children. Public Health Service Publications. Department of Health, Education, and offbeat Washington, D.C.Dunn, L.M. nad Smith J.O. (1987). Peabody Language Development Kits. Levels P, I.II.III. Circle Pines, Minn. American pleader Service.Fernald, G.M. and Keller, H. (1971), The Effect of Kinesthetic Factors in the Development of Word Recognition in the Case of Non Readers. Journal of Educational Research 4355-357.Getman, G.H. (1985). The Visuo-Motor Complex in the Acquisition of Learning Skills. Learning Disorders, Volume 1. Seattle Special Child PublicationsGellingham,A. and Stillman B. (1986). remedial Training for Children with circumstantial Disability in Reading, Spelling, and Penmanship, 5th ed. Cambridge, Mass Educators make Service.Hegge,T., Kirk,S. and Kirk, W.(1986). Remedial Reading Drills. Ann Arbor, Mich. Geroge Wahr.Hirsch,E. (1983). Train ing of Visualizing Ability by the Kinesthetic manner of Teaching Reading. Unpublished masters thesis. University of Illinois.Karnes,M., Zehrbach, R. and Teska, J. (1984). The Karnes Preschool Program Rational curricular Offerings and Follow up Data. Report on Longitudinal Evaluations of Preschool Programs, vol. 1 95-108.Kirk, S.A. (1963). behavioral Diagnosis and Remediation of Learning Disabilities. In Proceedings of the Conference on Exploration into the Problems of the Perceptually Handicapped Child. Chicago Perceptually Handicapped Children.Kirk, S.A. and Elkins, J. (1985) Characteristics of Children Enrolled in the Child Service Demonstration Centers. Journal of Learning Disabilities 8 630-637.Learning Difficulties in Children and Adults. (1986). Report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties.Lombardi, T.P., and Lombardi, E.J. (1987). ITPA Clinical Interpretation and Remediation. Seattle Special Child Publication.Minskoff, E.D., Wis eman, and Minskoff J. (1985). The MWM Program for growing Language Abilities. Ridgefield, N.J. Educational Performance Associates.Orton, S.J. (1978). Specific Reading Disability Strphosymbolia. Journal of the American Medical Association 901095-1099.Spalding, R.B.AND Spalding W.T. (1987). The Writing Road to Reading. Morrow New York.Strauss, A.A. and Lehtinen. (1987). Psychopathology and Education of the Brain- Injured Child, vol. II. New York Grune and Stratton.Weiderholt, J.L (1984).Historical Perspectives on the Education of the Learning Disabled. In L. Mann and D.A. Sabitino, eds. The Third Review of Special Education. Philadelphia JSE Press.