The Right to Read

Chapter 10
“Learning Disabilities” in Perspective

In the sixth chapter it was stated that there are certain aspects regarding “learning disabilities” that are difficult to explain if one adheres to a medical frame of reference. The first of these is that the incidence of learning disabilities is on the increase. How is it to be explained that more and more children are born with mysterious brain problems? If, on the other hand, one accepts the ideas expressed on the foundational skills of reading, a completely logical explanation becomes available — that is, if one simultaneously keeps in mind the effect of certain changes in our society.

Children usually learn to read and write during the first year in school. This implies that the skills that are basic to the reading act must have been mastered before school. If a child is unable to learn to read, then it means that not enough was done while he was preschool to enable him to master the required skills, or to acquire sufficient mastery of them.

It is important to bear in mind that there are two modes of learning, viz. incidental and intentional learning. Incidental learning implies that learning occurs without any prior intention to learn. For example, if a person bumps his head against an object, he would learn to be more careful the next time he walks past that object. Intentional learning, on the other hand, means that purposeful learning is taking place.

A few decades ago, everyday life circumstances were such that more opportunities were provided by the daily environment so that preschool children could, to a great extent, master the foundational skills of reading in an incidental manner. Since then, drastic changes have occurred in our life circumstances. As a result of these changes, the opportunities for mastering these skills incidentally have gradually decreased.

Today, children and their families are bombarded by a great many more demands on their time and attention. In the 1950s there were but a handful of activities available for children. Today, a profusion of options compete for the child's attention, for example television, video games, computer games, et cetera . This has certainly had a great influence — not necessarily a good one — on the intellectual development of children.

Although television was available in the 1950s, it was a far cry from the multi-channel cable and satellite dish offerings of today, which has definitely changed family life. There has been a drastic decline in interpersonal communication between family members. A child can easily isolate himself by sitting in front of the television, while the rest of the family “forgets” about him. In 1951 Maccoby found that television drastically shortened children's play time, and that children were less willing to assist in household chores.² Four decades later, the average American child's weekly diet of TV amounted to twenty-seven hours, consisting of prime time, soap operas, sports, cartoons, etc. And this figure is minimal; one out of every four children view at least forty hours of television per week.³ The problem is that TV cannot replace education. Even the so-called educational programs, researchers have found, only have an impact if a parent participates and draws the child's attention to interesting aspects of the program. If the child sits on his own, he becomes a mere passive spectator.⁴

The present-day toys attest to the great technological advances that have been made. The more technologically advanced the toy, the less is left to the imagination of the child, with the result that there are fewer opportunities for the development of the child's cognitive abilities. Contrary to the opinion of most people, children who had to make their own toys were better off than children who are addicted to video and computer games.

Other important changes include urbanization, forcing many children to grow up in restricted, less stimulating environments ¾ think of the Pygmies ¾ and the decline in time parents have available to spend with their children. Today, a larger number of mothers are working than was the case a few decades ago. This has led to fewer opportunities for communication between mother and child. Many fathers have also, in our modern world, become so involved in the rat race, that they have withdrawn from the education of their children, leaving whatever involvement is still left between parents and children to their spouses. Leete-Guy and Schor have found that the annual hours of work of employed Americans have increased markedly—by approximately 140 hours, or more than an additional three weeks — since 1969. This includes both hours on the job and time spent working at home. As a result, leisure, or free time — and of course time parents spend with their children — has declined.⁵

Then how can this problem be solved? Should we return to the old system? Should all mothers quit their jobs, all television sets be banished from our homes and should we all move back to rural areas? That would be a rather absurd idea. What needs to be done, however, is that parents must compensate for things that were previously provided by the everyday environment. Because opportunities for incidental learning have decreased, parents must create more opportunities for intentional learning. Parents must especially make sure that their children receive the necessary training they need to develop the skills that form the basis of the reading act.

The second unaccountable phenomenon, from a medical point of view, is the fact that the percentage of children with “learning disabilities” varies among countries and areas. As previously stated, the incidence of reading disabilities in the 1980s was particularly low in the East Asian countries — Japan, China and Korea. It is hardly possible to attribute this fact to the idea that the brain structures of these people are better equipped than those of the Westerner, and adherents of the medical model therefore maintain that this phenomenon should be attributed to the difference in writing systems between the East Asians and Westerners. Let us investigate the Japanese written language to see if that may be true.

Between 25 and 35 percent of the words in Japanese texts are written in Chinese characters and are referred to as Kanji. However, all pronunciation and the meaning of some Kanji characters are different from that of the Chinese. Approximately 70 percent of the words in Japanese texts are written in one of two Japanese syllabaries. Syllabaries are writing systems where each sign represents a separate syllable. The two Japanese syllabaries together are called Kana, consisting of both Hiragana and Katakana. Each of the Kana syllabaries has 46 basic letters, which represents 46 different syllables. With the possible addition of other marks adding additional phonetic values, related or secondary letters can be created bringing the total to 71 syllables that can be written in either Hiragana or Katakana. The Hiragana script is used to represent words that are Japanese in origin, about 65 percent of the text. Those words written in Katakana script, about 4 percent of the text, are loan words from European languages. The two Kana syllabaries along with a core of 1,850 Kanji ideographs borrowed from Chinese make up the daily reading demand in Japan. The remaining one percent of textual material in Japanese is written in Arabic numerals and Roman letters or Romanji.⁶

When reading is introduced to children in Japan, the Kana syllabaries are generally introduced before Kanji characters.⁷ At the end of nine years of compulsory schooling, children have learned the 1,850 Kanji characters used in Japanese.⁸

One can perhaps argue that the Kanji ideographs, where each symbol represents a thing or an idea rather than a sound, is easier than our Latin alphabet. However, the Kana syllabaries, like our alphabet, uses symbols to represent sounds,⁹ and it would therefore be difficult to argue that reading problems were virtually nonexistent in Japan because their written language is easier than the Latin alphabet. The difference in incidence must simply be sought in cultural differences. The Japanese communities were more traditional. Children grew up in an environment that put a higher premium on parental involvement, especially in terms of the written word, than is the case in Western society. (Note that we are using the past tense in this discussion. Unfortunately, the problem of parental neglect has seemingly taken root in Japan in the 1990s, and is growing fast.¹⁰ Unless this tide can be turned, one can expect an “explosion” of learning disabilities in the future, followed by a lowering of Japan's educational standards.)

By the time children entered first grade in Japan, only one percent of them could not recognize any Hiragana symbols. It was not unusual for 4-year-olds to read books entirely in Hiragana. More than 93 percent of Japanese parents read to their children regularly by the time their children were four years old. This emphasis on parent reading began as a nationwide movement after World War II. There was a wide variety of books and magazines available for preschool children that were bought by parents on a regular basis. One preschool magazine sold more than a million copies per year, and 95 percent of 2-year-olds owned a book. Reading readiness was attained by 4½ years of age.¹¹

There was a high degree of parent involvement with children's education in Japan. Children were required to attend school six days a week. Homework assignments were given not only every day but also on weekends, holidays, and over summer vacations. Sakamoto reported that even though the children hated it, parents supported this practice and encouraged their children to complete their homework.¹²

Surprisingly — or maybe not surprisingly — in Japan “excessive reading,” as opposed to lack of interest in reading, was a far more widely recognized problem.¹³

Parental involvement in Japan certainly paid off. While only 75 percent of U.S. high school students graduated in the 1980s, Japan succeeded in leading fully 91 percent of their students through a much more challenging school curriculum.¹⁴ According to Thomas Rohlen, the Japanese high school diploma was arguably the equivalent of a U.S.A. bachelor's degree. “I found this conclusion hard to believe at first,” he wrote. “But the more I looked at the fundamental facts, the more convinced I became that the majority of high school graduates in Japan would compare well with our university graduates in terms of basic knowledge in all fields and in mathematics and in science skills.”¹⁵ And the last sobering piece of news is that Japan averaged forty-one students per class, compared to twenty-six for the United States,¹⁶ and the over-all per-pupil expenditure in Japan was 50 percent less than in the U.S.A.¹⁷

But to those who still insist that the difference in writing systems, and not the high degree of parental involvement, explains the low incidence of dyslexia in the East Asian countries, the research of Barbara Schneider and Yongsook Lee (1990) might be an eye-opener. They compared the academic performance of East Asian American school students to that of Anglo American students (whites whose ancestors immigrated from Western or Northern Europe). Excluded from both groups were students in special classes who had learning disabilities or physical handicaps. Both groups were compared as to their ability in the Latin alphabet.

Data collected indicated that East Asian academic performance on achievement tests and report card grades was higher than that of the Anglo students in all areas, with the exception of language skills. Differences in language performance could be attributed to the fact that many of the East Asian students were at a disadvantage because their parents did not speak English.

Schneider and Lee found only cultural differences — all related to parental involvement — to explain the East Asian Americans being “superior” to the Anglo Americans. For example, 22 out of 37 of the East Asian parents reported that they had spent time teaching their children reading, writing, and simple arithmetic skills before entering kindergarten. Only 4 out of 25 Anglo parents indicated that they had engaged in similar activities. East Asian parents closely monitored and controlled their children's use of time on academic and social pursuits and they placed high value on education. “There is nothing without education,” one parent remarked. “Education is more important than money.”¹⁸

Third, if one attempts to explain learning disabilities from a constitutional perspective, it is very difficult to understand why this “ailment” is encountered more often among boys than girls. (How lucky for the female sex to have better developed brain structures than their male counterparts!). But if one takes certain differences between the two sexes into account, this riddle can easily be solved.

As formerly indicated, the preschool phase is the most important time for the development of the skills foundational to reading. When left to themselves, preschool boys and girls involve themselves in different activities. Little girls usually keep themselves busy with activities that are more conducive to the acquisition of these foundational skills than the activities that boys prefer. When left on their own, little boys prefer activities that promote gross motor development. As a mother of two sons, Susan (coauthor) can testify to this. The solution is that the parents must intervene, and intentionally and on a regular basis involve the preschool boy in activities that exercise the foundational skills of reading.

If one accepts the theory expounded in this book, even the matter of heredity can be explained. The fact that learning disabilities seem to run in families does not necessarily imply that it is genetically determined. If the idea of the foundational skills of reading is accepted, an alternative possibility presents itself. Seeing that these skills must be taught, it is impossible for a dyslexic parent to teach his child the skills which underlie the reading act — simply because he has not mastered them himself. It is equally impossible for a non-French speaking parent to teach his child to speak French!

Lastly, it must be added that schools are all but blameless for the increase in learning disabilities. If the educational system had been effective, many of the “at risk” children could have been saved. Unfortunately, for the greater part, it is no longer effective. One of the reasons, as discussed in a previous chapter, is that repetition no longer forms the backbone of the educational system.

A further factor, that may have contributed to the worldwide downward trend in educational standards, may have been a general attitude of sloppiness and carelessness that has crept into education. Lean and Eaton, in their book Education or Catastrophe? state:

These are harsh words, and tragically they may be true in many cases. We, however, are convinced that there are many caring teachers, who would make a difference in the lives of children, if only they knew how.

By turning the page, they will learn how….

Notes

1. Williams, W. A., The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved (Camden, New Jersey: Author's publication, 1928).
2. Maccoby, E. E., “Television: Its impact on school children,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1951, vol. 15, 421-444.
3. Lean, A. E., & Eaton, W. E., Education or Catastrophe? (Wolfeboro: Longwood Academic, 1990), 78.
4. Friedrich, L. K., & Stein, A. H., “Aggressive and prosocial television programs and the natural behavior of pre-school children,” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1973, vol. 38(4), serial no. 151.
5. Leete-Guy, L., & Schor, J. B., The Great American Time Squeeze: Trends in Work and Leisure, 1969-1989, 1992, cited in D. P. Hallahan, “Some thoughts on why the prevalence of learning disabilities has increased,” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1992, vol. 25(8), 523-528.
6. Sakamoto, T., “Preschool reading in Japan,” The Reading Teacher, 1975, vol. 29(3), 240-244; Sakamoto, T., “Writing systems in Japan,” in J. E. Merritt (ed.), New Horizons in Reading (Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1976), 244-249; Taylor, I., “Writing systems and reading: Papers in language use and language function (no. 3),” Scarborough College, University of Toronto, Ontario, April 1978; all sources cited in E. M. Sheridan, “Reading disabilities: Can we blame the written language?” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1983, vol. 16(2), 81-86.
7. Taylor, “Writing systems and reading,” cited in Sheridan, “Reading disabilities: Can we blame the written language?”
8. Sakamoto, “Preschool reading in Japan,” cited in Sheridan, “Reading disabilities: Can we blame the written language?”
9. Bloom, F. E., & Lazerson, A., Brain, Mind, and Behavior (2nd ed.), (New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1985), 287.
10. Larimer, T., et al., “Young Japan: From we to me with its in-your-face style and endless thirst for thrills, Japan's new generation wants to transform the nation,” Time, 3 May 1999.
11. Namekawa, M., “Children's literature and reading,” in J. E. Merritt (ed.), New Horizons in Reading (Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1976); Sakamoto, “Preschool reading in Japan”; Sakamoto, T., “Beginning reading in Japan,” in L. Ollila (ed.), Beginning Reading Instruction in Different Countries (Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1981), 16-25; Sakamoto, T., & Makita, K., “Japan,” in J. Downing (ed.), Comparative Reading (New York: MacMillan Company, 1973), 440-465; all sources cited in Sheridan, “Reading disabilities: Can we blame the written language?”
12. Sakamoto, “Writing systems in Japan,” cited in Sheridan, “Reading disabilities: Can we blame the written language?”
13. Sakamoto & Makita, “Japan,” cited in Sheridan, “Reading disabilities: Can we blame the written language?”
14. Honig, B., Last Chance for Our Children. How You Can Help Save Our Schools (New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1987), 30.
15. Rohlen, T. P., Japan's High Schools (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).
16. McKnight, C. C., et al., The Underachieving Curriculum, 56-57, cited in T. Sowell, Inside American Education (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 12.
17. Perlman, L. J., Hudson Institution Briefing Paper, May 1990, no. 120, cited in Sowell, Inside American Education, 12.
18. Schneider, B., & Lee, Y., “A model for academic success: The school and home environment of East Asian students,” Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 1990, vol. 21, 358-377.
19. Lean & Eaton, Education or Catastrophe? 19.