Skip to main content

The Child With a Learning Disorder

  • Chapter
  • 25 Accesses

Abstract

In the world of today, at least in the industrialized nations, ever-higher levels of education are an important prerequisite for economic and social success. Thus the child who fails in school is at a disadvantage. The term “learning disorder” refers to a failure to meet society’s expectation of academic achievement so necessary not only for social and economic success, but also for the respect of parents and teachers, for prestige among peers, and for the child’s own self-esteem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Recommended for Further Reading

  1. ADAMS, J. “Clinical Neuropsychology and the Study of Learning Disorders”. Pediat. Clin. N. Amer. 20–3: 587–98, 1973. —this review of clinical neuropsychological studies does not support the notion that learning disorders represent behavioural disorders of brain dysfunction, although methodological and conceptual limitations do not rule out the possibility of more complex neurophysiological disorders than those studied so far. The best rule of thumb is to disregard any diagnosis unless its use provides clear treatment or educational implications for the child.

    Google Scholar 

  2. ASHER, E. J. “The Inadequacy of Current Intelligence Tests for Testing Kentucky Mountain Children”. J. Genet. Psychol. 46: 480–86, 1935. —one of the original articles dealing with the impact of culture on intellectual functioning.

    Google Scholar 

  3. BRUTTEN, M.; RICHARDSON, S.O.; and MANGEL, C. Something’s Wrong with My Child. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1973. —a book for parents about children with learning disabilities.

    Google Scholar 

  4. COHEN, A.K. Report of the National Institute of Mental Health on Juvenile Delinquency to the United States Congress. February 1960. —a clear statement of the disadvantages faced by the lower-class child on being exposed to a basically middle-class school system.

    Google Scholar 

  5. DRICHTON, J.; KENDALL, D.; CATTERSON, J.; and DUNN, H. Learning Disabilities: A Practical Office Manual. Victoria, B.C., Canadian Pediatric Society, 1972. —another textbook.

    Google Scholar 

  6. DAVIE, R.; BUTLER, N.; and GOLDSTEIN, H. From Birth to Seven:The Second Report of the National Child Development Survey. Humanities, 1972. —recommended for those interested in reading more about the prevalence of learning disorders in the general community.

    Google Scholar 

  7. DE HIRSCH, K. Learning Disabilities: An Overview. Bulletin, New York Academy of Medicine: April 1974. —describes methods of predicting future reading disabilities in young children.

    Google Scholar 

  8. DE HIRSCH, K.; JANSKY, J.J.; and LANGFORD, W. S. Predicting Reading Failure. New York, Harper and Row, 1966. —an excellent review article.

    Google Scholar 

  9. EISENBERG, LEON. “Reading Retardation 1 : Psychiatric and Sociologic Aspects”. Pediat. 37: 352–76, 1966. —a special article dealing with both the psychiatric and sociologie sources of reading retardation.

    Google Scholar 

  10. HAWKE, W. A. “A Six-Year Study of Development of Jamaican Children” (in preparation). —illustrates problems in using tests of intellectual function with children raised in a different cultural environment.

    Google Scholar 

  11. KINSBOURNE, M. “School Problems”. Pediats. 52: 697–710, 1973. —very clearly written and at times controversial article. The author feels that the terms “minimal brain damage” and “dyslexia” are potentially harmful. He stresses the harm that can be done through group assessments of intelligence, the importance of the concept of developmental lag, of deriving a management program suited to the specific difficulties and areas of strength of the particular child, discusses techniques of assessing neurological development and the selective use of medication.

    Google Scholar 

  12. KINSBOURNE, M. “The Hyperactive and Impulsive Child”. Ont Med. Rev. 42: 657–60, 1975. —maintains that it is not the hyperactivity per se but rather the impulsivityand inability to attend—i.e. the distractibility—that interfere most with both learning and socialization. Stresses the important role of stimulants in increasing the child’s accessibility to behavioural intervention.

    Google Scholar 

  13. KAPPELMAN, M. M.; LUCK, E.; and GANTER, R. L. “Profile of the Disadvantaged Child with Learning Disorders”. Amer. J. Dis. Child. 121: 371–79, 1971. —in-depth study of 100 disadvantaged children, attempts categorizing the causes of learning disabilities. Discusses the contribution of family adequacy and family motivation.

    Google Scholar 

  14. HELLMUTH, J., ed., Learning Disorders. Vol. 1 (1965) to Vol. 4 (1971); Special Child Publications, Seattle. —a good periodic review of the area.

    Google Scholar 

  15. LESSER, S. R., and EASSER, B. R. “Personality Differences in the Perceptually Handicapped”. J. Amer. Acad. Child Psychiat. 11: 458–66, 1972. —children whose development from birth has not followed normal pathways because of perceptual handicaps are bound to be psychologically affected by their different experience. Presents the need for a greater understanding of the psychological consequences of primary perceptual handicaps.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. MULLIGAN, W. “A Study of Dyslexia and Delinquency”. Acad. Ther. 177–87, 1969. —discusses the high correlation between dyslexia and delinquency, stressing the importance of early identification and remedial treatment of the dyslexic child.

    Google Scholar 

  17. MYKLEBUST, H. R., and JOHNSON, D. J. Learning Disabilities: Educational Principles and Practices. New York, Grune and Stratton, 1967. —a sound textbook.

    Google Scholar 

  18. MYKLEBUST, H. R., ed., Progress in Learning Disabilities. Vol. 1 (1968) to Vol. 3 (1975). New York, Grune and Stratton. —also a comprehensive periodic review of the field.

    Google Scholar 

  19. PAGE-EL, E., and GROSSMAN, H. J. “Neurologic Appraisal in Learning Disorders”. Pediat. Clin. N. Amer. 20: 599–605, 1973. —discusses the neurologic indicators of learning disorders, suggesting both standard tests and special procedures which will assist in an office evaluation. Questions the usefulness of the term “soft” neurological signs.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Report of the Conference on the Use of Stimulant Drugs in the Treatment of Behaviorally Disturbed Young School Children. Sponsored by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C., January 11–12, 1971. —a brief, tightly organized summary which touches upon the lack of clarity in diagnosis, and then raises a number of concerns related to the use of stimulant drugs before concluding that “there is a place for stimulant medications in hyperkinetic behavioral disturbance, but these medications are not the only form of effective treatment”.

    Google Scholar 

  21. ROHWER, W. D. “Learning, Race, and School Success”. Review of Educational Research. 41: 191–210, 1971. —attempts to differentiate school success from intelligence. Presents some of the problems black children face in our school system.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. SAFER, D.; ALLEN, R.; and BARR, E. “Depression of Growth in Hyperactive Children on Stimulant Drugs”. New. Eng. J. Med. 287: 217–20, 1972. —dextroamphetamine and ritalin caused suppression of growth in weight and height in a group of twenty-nine hyperactive children. The growth inhibition was greater with dextroamphetamine, and rebound weight gain occurred when medication was abruptly stopped.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. SDHULTZ, C. B., and AURBACH, H. A. “The Usefulness of Cumulative Deprivation as an Explanation of Educational Deficiencies”. Merrill-Palmer Quart. Behav. Devel. 17: 27–39, 1971. —explores these questions: Do the learning disabilities of disadvantaged children represent deficiencies in skills and knowledge required by school or are they the result of a genuine arrest of intellectual development? Is this arrest permanent? Does the lower-class environment merely correlate with the learning retardation or cause it?

    Google Scholar 

  24. SPRAGUE, R. I., and SLEATOR, E. K. “Effects of Psychopharmacologic Agents on Learning Disorders”. Pediat. Clin. N. Amer. 20: 719–35, 1973. —Cites figures indicating that in some areas up to 25 per cent of all children are given stimulants for so-called hyperactivity.

    Google Scholar 

  25. THOMPSON, L. J. “Learning Disabilities: An Overview”. Amer. J. Psychiat. 130: 395–99, 1973. —another competent overview of the field.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. WALZER, S., and RICHMOND, J. B. “The Epidemiology of Learning Disorders”. Pediat. Clin. N. Amer. 20: 549–65, 1973. —this epidemiological study stresses the contribution of biological, socio-cultural, and psychological factors, stressing the degree to which these are concentrated in the socio-economically disadvantaged child.

    Google Scholar 

  27. WEISS, G.; KRUGER, E.; DANIELSON, U.; and ELMAN, M. “Effect of Long-Term Treatment of Hyperactive Children with Methylphenidate”. Canad. Med. Assoc. J. 112: 159–65, 1975. —consistent use of stimulants in hyperactive school children over a five-year period, while decreasing impulsivity, hyperactivity, and aggression, did not result in improved psychiatric, academic or psychological functioning as opposed to a no-drug control group.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 1977 Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hawke, W.A., Lesser, S.R. (1977). The Child With a Learning Disorder. In: Steinhauer, P.D., Rae-Grant, Q. (eds) Psychological Problems of the Child and His Family. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-81464-0_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics