WINNIPEG TEACHER FOR STRUGGLING STUDENTS: LITERACY- SPECIALIZING IN DYSLEXIA AND DYSGRAPHIA - 4 THE LOVE OF READING
  • Home
  • Meet the Teacher
  • Services
  • Testimonials
  • Volunteer Advocacy Work
  • Contact
  • Links

Dyslexia, dyscalculia, dysgraphia, inattentive ADHD, and audio processing disorder links.

"I think that if you are not good at conventional work at school, you were made to feel stupid." 
"I believe I am good at other things and I only discovered that once I left school."
"There was no such thing called dyslexia.  You were called it slow or ret**ded or whatever."
"What you can never change is the effect that the words 'dumb' and 'stupid', have on young people."
He wishes that he was diagnosed before 2007:
​"I wish I had somebody helping me to understand that there were many others like me." 
"I wish I had somebody in my life then that was really able to do an intervention and get me through those rough[school] years." 
​"I didn't want to put a Band-Aid on something. I want to figure out how to make it go away forever."
Bill 23–The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act
​
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously announced, we will now move to Bill 23, The Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Amend­ment Act.
Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister respon­si­ble for Accessibility): I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Ms. Gordon), that Bill 23, The Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Amend­ment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les personnes vulnérables ayant une déficience mentale, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.
Motion presented.
Ms. Squires: Bill 23 addresses several recom­men­dations made by the Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Task Force. The task force was appointed in September of 2020 by the minister of Families to review policies and practices related to services for adults living with intellectual dis­abil­ities in Manitoba.
The under­taking of such a serious task was accom­plished, thanks to the dedi­cation, efforts and expertise of a nine-member team of com­mu­nity experts who researched, studied and consulted widely on sig­ni­fi­cant issues affecting adults living with an intellectual dis­abil­ity.
In December of '21, a final report titled Pathways to Dignity: Rights, Safeguards, Planning and Decision Making was released alongside a series of recom­men­dations and a two-year imple­men­ta­tion plan. Several aspects of the task force recom­men­dations touched on legis­lation. The proposed amend­ments before you are a reflection of changes to the act that were recom­mended by these com­mu­nity experts.
The Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Act came into force in 1996 as a way to meet the needs of a distinct popu­la­tion of adults living with an intellectual dis­abil­ity who were previously covered by the Manitoba Mental Health Act.
At that time, the act brought in a regime that was considered progressive for its time and is still, in some respects, unique across Canada. Despite the act's focus on best practices, it has not been updated in the past 26 years. Elements of the act are out of date and we recog­nize that the gov­ern­ment must evolve as the under­standing of dis­abil­ity changes.
The amend­ments recog­nize that adults living with an intellectual dis­abil­ity are people first, and are entitled to the same rights as all other adults. This is reflected in two new principles at the begin­ning of the act. New references to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Dis­abil­ities and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been added to the act, and will play a strong role in aligning our legis­lation with inter­national standards.
Bill 23 also introduces a people-first statement that ensures an adult's wishes, values and beliefs will guide all forms of decision making relevant to their well‑being. Whether these decisions are made in­de­pen­dently or with assist­ance from others, we recog­nize that an adult's right to be treated the same as any other adult should always be the primary focus.
We heard from the task force that some of the lan­guage within the act is outdated, and that some terms, such as vul­ner­able persons and mental dis­abil­ity, hold negative connotations for the dis­abil­ity com­mu­nity. The proposed amend­ments will modernize the act's language to address these concerns, including the new titles for the Vul­ner­able Persons' Com­mis­sioner and the act itself, which will now be referred to as adults living with an intellectual dis­abil­ity act.
A major component of the task force recom­men­dations concern the pro­tec­tion for adults living with intellectual dis­abil­ities. The act determines how we define abuse and neglect, and sets out procedures for mandatory reporting, in­vesti­gation and emergency inter­ven­tion. In order to clarify and expand on these pro­­tec­tions, certain aspects of the act's pro­tec­tion man­­date have been updated to best–to reflect best practices in other juris­dic­tions.
New definitions of abuse and neglect, modelled after Nova Scotia's pro­tec­tion of persons in care act, will acknowl­edge concerns from the task force that the act creates an overly strict test to prove that an adult has been abused. Under the current definition, for example, a slap across the face would not meet the legal threshold, since it does not lead to serious or lasting physical con­se­quences. The new definition reduces the threshold from serious harm to harm, so instances such as these are now captured. The de­part­ment will be able to proceed with more cases, and include those previously considered as unsub­stan­tiated or inconclusive.
Bill 23 also includes con­se­quen­tial amend­ments to definitions of abuse and neglect in the pro­tec­tion of persons in care act, as both acts contain pro­tec­tion mandates and refer cases to the adult registry–Adult Abuse Registry Com­mit­tee. After consulting with the De­part­ment of Health, we felt that these amend­ments were necessary to ensure con­sistent reporting across de­part­ments, and that all adults receive equal treat­ment regardless of capacity or setting.
We also heard from the task force about a lack of infor­ma­tion on what happens during and upon con­clusion of an in­vesti­gation. The task force noted that victims and their families are often left without im­por­tant details or follow‑up regarding their cases, and so this act addresses that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to present this bill for the House's con­sid­era­tion.
QuestionsMr. Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any member in the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate; subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recognized opposition parties; subsequent questions asked by each independ­ent member; remaining questions asked by any oppo­sition members. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.
The floor is open for questions.
MLA Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Could the minis­ter tell us what else her de­part­ment and herself have heard from dis­abil­ity advocates on how to promote acceptance in respect of dis­abil­ity, and really move towards ending ableism?
Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister respon­si­ble for Accessibility): That is a really good question, and I think ending all forms of discrimination is certainly some­thing that every­body on the task force and in the de­part­ment are working towards addressing.
And I–we do believe that updating the language to be more reflective of the com­mu­nity's wishes goes a long way. We also believe that including language from the declaration–the United Nations declaration on people with–living with an intellectual dis­abil­ity–be reflected as well as moving to ensure a better sub­stitute and assisted decision-making efforts and initiatives are in place, so that people can fully realize their potential in Manitoba.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the minister: This is an act which covers people–persons with a mental dis­abil­ity; would it cover people who have a learning dis­abil­ity?
* (15:30)
Ms. Squires: So, it is spe­cific­ally for people living with an intellectual dis­abil­ity and the definition of an intellectual dis­abil­ity.
But certainly, this act provides protocols and the threshold for in­vesti­gations by the de­part­mental branch whenever there is an abuse that would occur against a person living with a dis­abil­ity in the province of Manitoba and certainly does provide a framework for all individuals in Manitoba to achieve their highest destiny regardless–or irrespective of a dis­abil­ity.
MLA Fontaine: Could the minister share with the House whether or not Manitobans with dis­abil­ities were consulted on in respect to Bill 23, and overall, what was the consensus whether or not that they were sup­port­ive of the changes in the bill, and did they have any other ad­di­tional recom­men­dations?
Ms. Squires: Indeed, there were several con­sul­ta­tions that had occurred with families and self advocates from the Family Advocacy Network, Com­mu­nity Living Manitoba, Continuity Care, Inclusion Winnipeg, Winnipegosis and District Resi­den­tial Support Services, Com­mu­nity Venture, Life's Journey, epic smile St. Malo, Westman Parkland Network and Abilities Manitoba.
They were all sup­port­ive of these proposed amend­­ments and we will be following up with these groups when we develop the related regula­tions and policies for this bill.
And there are also other measures that will be taken to address the com­pre­hen­sive task force report that we've received earlier last year.
Mr. Gerrard: So, it's clear that, from the minister's statement, that most people with a learning dis­abil­ity, at least who don't have an IQ below–what is the 'i‑cloo' level that is considered under this act? Is it 70 or 75 or 80? Because we've heard a lot of different con­di­tions.
And why is the minister spe­cific­ally excluding people with learning dis­abil­ities? Because these are clearly brain dis­abil­ities, and some people would classify them as mental dis­abil­ities.
Ms. Squires: So, this–we are not looking to expand the eligibility criteria for CLDS pro­gram­ming. That is not what this legis­lation is attempting to do. And we recog­nize that there are broader questions that need to be asked and answered in regards to who the act should serve.
And we recog­nize that that would involve a com­pre­hen­sive analysis and con­sul­ta­tion, which we will certainly be endeavouring to do, but in this specific bill, that is not covered and that is not what we'd consulted on, and that was not what the task force had recom­mended at this parti­cular juncture.
MLA Fontaine: Could the minister share with the House what else she heard from dis­abil­ity advocates about how to promote acceptance of dis­abil­ity and ableism? So, by that I mean, like, what other recom­men­dations have come forward in respect to that?
Ms. Squires: So, there are numer­ous things that we can all work towards to ensure that everybody has the op­por­tun­ity to achieve their full destiny in Manitoba.
We heard very loud and clear that everybody who is living with a dis­abil­ity wanted to see the CLDS sector fortified. And that is why we enhanced those wages to $19 effective on April 1st of this year, a sig­ni­fi­cant increase in the CLDS budget for enhancing and stabilizing that sector.
We also know that there was a need for ongoing funding for busi­nesses and munici­palities and others to apply to so that they can receive funding to make sure that their place of busi­ness, their websites, their physical–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able minister's time has expired.
Mr. Gerrard: In the–this act, it's my under­standing that the mental dis­abil­ity, so-called or defined, has to be manifested before the age of 18 years. And so it's leaving out people who are identified after 18 years, and in my ex­per­ience, that the gov­ern­ment is inter­preting this as diagnosed before 18 years. Because I've had examples of people who were over 18 but had a history of having the mental dis­abil­ity before 18–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Ms. Squires: So, I do want to remind the member that this bill is specific about modernizing the act when it comes to the language that we use when talking about people with dis­abil­ities, as well as provi­ding more tools to deal with allegations of abuse.
Under the former act, some­thing that would be, like, for example, a slap that would not cause serious harm, did not meet the threshold to be investigated by the De­part­ment of Families' pro­tec­tion unit.
And also, under the former act, caregivers and the person with a dis­abil­ity them­selves were not able to get infor­ma­tion about an ongoing in­vesti­gation. We thought that that was–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able minister's time has expired.
Mr. Gerrard: There are some positive things in this bill, that I'm really astounded that the gov­ern­ment has left so much unattended to.
I brought up earlier today the fact that the gov­ern­ment is currently not concerned about people with learn­ing dis­abil­ities. And, in fact, this is proof posi­tive, because the gov­ern­ment has completely omitted people with learning dis­abil­ities who don't have a low IQ, and that is the majority of people with learning dis­abil­ities.
I ask: How could the gov­ern­ment have not paid any attention to people with learning dis­abil­ities?
Ms. Squires: You know, I ask the member how he can politicize such an im­por­tant bill and put such comments that he just made on the record.
This bill was a direct response to the 18 recom­men­dations that were put forward by the vul­ner­able persons task force, nine of which are being fully addressed through these proposed amend­ments; six were addressed through changes to the CLDS policy; and two will be addressed in an upcoming legis­lative proposal.
Now, I wish that this member opposite really put his money where his mouth is and voted in favour of the many substantive changes that we've brought for­ward as a gov­ern­ment, including increases in budget to enhance people's lives who are living with dis­abil­ities in the province of Manitoba. If he–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able minister's time has expired.
Mr. Gerrard: The–you know, we don't have a prob­lem with what's in the bill; we'll support it. But what we are very concerned about is the gov­ern­ment is leaving out so much that needs to be addressed.
And as I have, you know, illustrated in numer­ous petitions and in questions and in various other ways, there is a sig­ni­fi­cant problem in the way that this gov­ern­ment is failing to address people with learning dis­abil­ities, with dyslexia, with dysgraphia, with a nonverbal learning dis­abil­ity, with dyscalculia and so on, and–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The minister's time has expired.
Ms. Squires: The member opposite talks about a failure. Let me you about a failure.
This gov­ern­ment put forward a pilot project to support adolescent kids with high intellectual and developmental dis­abil­ities–a pilot project so that they could receive those services and not have to go into CFS care to receive those enhanced respite services. It was an $8‑million pilot project.
And what did that member do? He voted against it. He voted against getting supports for children with dis­abil­ities. Shame on him.
Mr. Gerrard: All right, let's be clear: I voted against the budget. It didn't mean that I don't agree with every tiny item in the budget.
This is–[interjection] Yes, and it was so small that some people who tried to apply quickly were–it was already totally used up. I mean, it really is a problem when this gov­ern­ment can't get their act together when they're dealing with people with learn­ing dis­abil­ities, with executive function dis­abil­ities.
You know, it's a real problem. This gov­ern­ment just can't do what needs to be done.
Why is this gov­ern­ment falling so far short? [interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
* (15:40)
Ms. Squires: Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the member for River Heights to stand up and say that an $8‑million commit­ment to helping children and adolescents with extreme developmental and intellectual dis­abil­ities, an $8‑million pilot to support those families is a small, inconsequential item, is shameful.
And I would like to get–ask him to get up and apologize for putting those reprehensible comments on the record, and I'd like him to apologize to those families who are being supported by that $8‑million bridge program pilot.
Mr. Gerrard: When we're talking about $8 million in an eight–more than $8‑billion budget–$16‑billion budget, it's small, it's not inconsequential; that's a different word. Let's put it–let's make it clear.
But there is a big problem if this gov­ern­ment is not doing its job when it comes to helping people with learning dis­abil­ities, and we have a bill here which, sadly, although it has some good, positive things in it, is not addressing some of the major issues that we're facing in Manitoba today with children with learning dis­abil­ities; they're not being properly screened.
When will the gov­ern­ment, if it's interested in–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Ms. Squires: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to put on the record that our gov­ern­ment will always stand up for people with dis­abil­ities.
We enhanced our budget this year–$640 million in the budget this year alone–to supporting families and individuals with dis­abil­ities. We also included $104‑million‑item increase to stabilize the sector for enhancing people who are living in com­mu­nity with dis­abil­ities.
These are not inconsequential initiatives; these are substantive changes that our gov­ern­ment has made in the funding for people with disabilities and the pro­gram­ming that people with dis­abil­ities can receive.
What did the member do when it came time to–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Minister's time has expired.
Mr. Gerrard: I'm going to ask the minister–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Gerrard: –when is she going to do some­thing that's going to make a difference for all the kids in Manitoba with learning dis­abil­ities? When is the minister going to take the broader view that's necessary when we're looking at children and adults with dis­abil­ities?
Ms. Squires: Of course our gov­ern­ment is taking a broader view. That is why we did come–have the $8‑million bridge pilot program that we had imple­mented over a year and a half ago. That is why we formed the task force on these issues, and the report, the 18 recom­men­dations that they had reported back to us are being imple­mented.
That is why we have grown the Families budget by 25 per cent since we took office. And the member opposite has continuously voted against a 25 per cent increase in the budget for social initiatives and for supporting people with dis­abil­ities.
I say–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The minister's time has expired.
And the time for questions has expired.
DebateMr. Deputy Speaker: The floor is open for debate. [interjection] Order.
MLA Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I'm just going to put a couple of words on the record in respect to Bill 23.
However, and I don't do this very often, but I will back up the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) in respect of some of the concerns that he's raising with children with learning dis­abil­ities.
I want to remind Manitobans and, certainly, mem­bers opposite that it was under Brian Pallister that this gov­ern­ment and each and every one of those mem­bers, save for maybe a couple, actually celebrated and supported cutting supports in school for children with learning dis­abil­ities. And I think that that's really im­por­tant to put on the record today, that that is actually the legacy of this gov­ern­ment in the work that they've done for children with learning dis­abil­ities.
In respect of this parti­cular bill, I think it is really im­por­tant that–and I think it's reflected in the bill–that as we learn more about using inclusive language and terminology that is disrespectful and disparaging and socially constructs Manitobans with dis­abil­ities as less than and contributes to ableism, when we learn that we can do better. And I would suggest that this is what this bill is aiming to do, and I fully support that.
I have said many, many times that there is power in the language that we use. The discourse and the language that we use informs the way that we see and feel and ex­per­ience the–in the world. And so, I think that this is a good bill in that sense, that we're going to be changing language, and on this side of the House we will certainly support that.
I think it's im­por­tant to put on the record in respect of Manitobans with dis­abil­ities will often face higher rates of abuse than Manitobans with no–that are not disabled. And I want to put on the record here that women with dis­abil­ities ex­per­ience higher rates of intimate partner violence than non-disabled women. And that's from–a statistic from 2018.
As well, in 2014, it showed that women with disabil­ities were twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime than non-disabled women. The report also found that women with dis­abil­ities were nearly twice as likely as women without dis­abil­ities to have been sexually assaulted in the last 12 months, and women with dis­abil­ities were also more likely to have been victimized multiple times.
And then, as well, that abuse against Manitobans with dis­abil­ities can take many forms, and does not always result in physical harm. So, expanding the definitions of abuse and neglect is an im­por­tant part of recog­nizing the prevalence of all forms of abuse, and certainly fighting and working to end it here in Manitoba.
Again, I also–this bill looks at the term vul­ner­able, and how we have shifted away from that language as well. It–the terminology vul­ner­able portrays persons with dis­abil­ities as being produced by external cir­cum­­stances and is not innate or intrinsic to the person them­selves. So, moreover, everyone can be vul­ner­able in a given situation or over a period of time.
So, to that end, some persons with dis­abil­ities may be more vul­ner­able than the rest of the Manitoban–Manitoba in certain times, such as gender-based vio­lence, but less vul­ner­able to others, such as identity theft. And because there–the lack of–there is a lack of societal supports and systemic ableism that makes persons with dis­abil­ities vul­ner­able when the specific barriers and circum­stances causing vul­ner­ability are addressed, they are no longer vul­ner­able.
So, we know that the United Nations has put forward the dis­abil­ity inclusive language guide­lines as part of their efforts to implement the United Nations Dis­abil­ity Inclusion Strategy, which was launched in 2019. And the United Nations suggested as general principles to use people-first language.
And some examples of that is that people-first language is the most widely accepted language for referring to persons with dis­abil­ities. People-first language emphasizes the person, not the dis­abil­ity, by placing a reference to the person or group before the reference to dis­abil­ity. For example, Deputy Speaker, we can use expressions such as children with dyslexia, women with intellectual dis­abil­ities and, of course, persons with dis­abil­ities.
However, the person-first rule does not neces­sarily apply to all types of dis­abil­ities. So, if in doubt, you should ask the person or group how they choose to identify. Persons with dis­abil­ities are not a homo­genous group, and they may self-identify in a variety of different ways. These identities should be respected and recog­nized.
* (15:50)
And then, I think some­thing that is very im­por­tant, and there's been a lot of movement in the last many years, is, you know, avoiding labels and stereo­types and, as well, do–not using condescending euphemisms. And I think that that's really im­por­tant because I do note that there has been a couple of incidents over the last many years, and including myself in a tweet that I had said, and somebody actually corrected me and I apologized and promised to do better in respect of that.
And that is really the bare minimum that we can do in steps to ending ableism, is to be very self-conscious–or to be very conscious of the language that we use and to not use these condescending euphemisms.
So, I'm not going to repeat any of them in this House, but I think it is incumbent on each and every one of us to ensure that we're reaching out to folks if we don't know if a certain thing is okay to say or if we shouldn't be saying it, and to get that infor­ma­tion from folks with dis­abil­ities, who are more than willing and able to share those teachings and that knowledge and that infor­ma­tion.
So, to that end, Deputy Speaker, I–we will, on this side of the House, be supporting Bill 23.
Miigwech.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to begin by thanking those members of the Family Advocacy Network and others who put a lot of effort into provi­ding a report and to provi­ding comment and ideas, in terms of this bill.
It is a step forward in many respects, even though I have been and continue to be critical about it omitting so many children with learning dis­abil­ities. At least the change to–of the title to vul­ner­able persons living with a–the adults living with an intellectual dis­abil­ity act is more con­sistent with the popu­la­tion that we're dealing with; that is, those with an intellectual dis­abil­ity.
I'm curious as to why the children are not included but, be that as it may, the effort that has been made to help individuals with 'lintellectual' dis­abil­ity must be acknowl­edged and must be supported; and individuals who are involved must be thanked for their effort.
I believe one of the major problems was that the gov­ern­ment started with a narrower mandate than they should have because they have completely omitted recog­nition of the importance of the individuals with learning dis­abil­ities, which is, in fact, one of the most common dis­abil­ities. And so, it is sad that there has not been the attention to individuals with learning disabil­ities who have an IQ above 70 or 75 or 80, depending on who's assessing it, it appears.
So, I look forward and we look forward, as Liberals, to this bill moving forward, but we are noting that there is a large amount of work that has not been done in the last two decades dealing with and helping children and adults with learning dis­abil­ities. I have advocated for those with learning disabilities on many occasions, including many occasions in this Chamber, and I have noted, as the minister has acknowl­edged, the importance of addressing individuals who have learning dis­abil­ities who are adults and provi­ding a way for helping them.
Interestingly, the gov­ern­ment in Newfoundland and Labrador has decided that is it not a strict IQ‑based criteria that should be used, but that it should be based on what the needs of individuals actually are. And that would certainly be a recog­nition which is long overdue.
Madam Speaker in the Chair
When I have been helping individuals who have had learning dis­abil­ities and–what is interesting is that they may be very low on some aspects of the IQ test and very high on other aspects of it; and it's generally agreed that when you get this kind of variation, that you really shouldn't be relying on IQ and the IQ test as the deter­mining factor. Because, as indeed some of the reports that I have seen for such individuals, they say, well, you have a caution here that you should be very careful about applying the mean IQ deter­mined in this way as a single number to a person in this circum­stance.
I have been helping an individual who has an executive-function dis­abil­ity, who in many respects has done–and is an in­cred­ible individual with amazing talents–but he's not able to–doesn't have the adaptive functioning to be able to do well as an adult without some help. And it may be that, over time, he can learn that and do very well, but at this point, he's certainly struggling and, without help, could very easily end up homeless.
I refer members of this Chamber to a study that was done by Linda Siegel of individuals who are ex­per­iencing homelessness in Toronto. And what she found was that 83 per cent had some sort of a learning dis­abil­ity. And the point that she made is that they were homeless–ex­per­iencing homelessness–not be­cause they were raised in a home that was poor, not because of the many other things that could explain this, but they were there because they had a learning dis­abil­ity and that they had not been adequately helped.
We clearly need to make major changes in this province to help those with learning dis­abil­ities who are falling through the cracks. I spoke earlier today in–to recog­nize the work that Twila Richards has done in advocating for those with learning dis­abil­ities. She has lived ex­per­ience in this respect; she has a child with a learning dis­abil­ity and another child with autism. And it has been a struggle: a struggle to get a proper diagnosis, a struggle to get assessed by a school psychologist in the school, a struggle even when there was a diagnosis, to get the help that is needed.
And there are certainly reams of work and good studies that have been done showing the kind of teaching, the kind of help that is necessary for a child with a–dyslexia, as an example–and I am told that in too many places in Manitoba that the schools are not really provi­ding the kind of help that these kids really need. There are con­sid­erable variations from school division to school division, with some school divi­sions doing pretty well and quite a number of school divisions not doing the job that's needed in screening and in making the diagnosis, and in helping these kids to succeed.
What is remark­able is how well kids with dyslexia can do–kids with learning dis­abil­ities. Winston Churchill had dyscalculia, and he certainly did pretty well. Picasso had a learning dis­abil­ity. And–go on and on, and Malcolm Gladwell talks about the many entre­preneurs who have dyslexia, and how well people with dyslexia can do, if given half a chance.
* (16:00)
It's time for us as Manitobans to give people with–children and adults with dyslexia half a chance, so that they can do well and be im­por­tant contributors to our society. It's time that we made that shift from where we are now.
So, with those comments, we look forward to this going to com­mit­tee stage, and we look forward to the next steps for this legis­lation.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Merci. Miigwech.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 23, The Vul­ner­able Persons Living with a Mental Dis­abil­ity Amend­ment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
I declare the motion carried.

​

Learning disorders/diabilities

Specific learning disorders with impairment in reading, writing, and math are also known as: dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia respectfully. 

Dyslexia Links:

Dysgraphia Links:

Things about dyslexia every teacher needs to know
simulator
What teachers need to know
simulator

Dyscalculia Links 

simulator
understand

 Attention Deficit Disorder

ADDitude
ADD Inattentive
organization simulator
Simulator

Selective Mutism and anxiety

Auditory Processing

selective mutism
video
Understanding and needs

What works:

Orton Gillingham.
Orton and Gillingham had the following credentials: pathologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, neurologist, and master of English. They gathered knowledge of the English language and developed the best teaching method for those who have dyslexia. OG is not a program but a wealth of knowledge and approaches to best teach all students how to read, spell, and write (there is OG math, too). 
​

What is the Orton-Gillingham Approach? | Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators (ortonacademy.org)
​

About OG — OG Canada (ogtutors.com)

Orton–Gillingham: What You Need to Know | Reading Rockets

Orton-Gillingham Research | Understood

Orton-Gillingham Principles:

Personalized
Teaching begins with recognizing the differing needs of learners. While those with dyslexia share similarities, there are differences in their language needs. In addition, individuals with dyslexia may possess additional problems that complicate learning. Most common among these are attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD).
Multisensory
It uses all the learning pathways: seeing, hearing, feeling, and awareness of motion, brought together by the thinking brain. The instructor engages in multisensory teaching to convey curricular content in the most understandable way to the student. The teacher also models how the student, by using these multiple pathways, can engage in multisensory learning that results in greater ease and success in learning.
Diagnostic and Prescriptive
An Orton-Gillingham lesson is both diagnostic and prescriptive. It is diagnostic in the sense that the instructor continuously monitors the verbal, nonverbal, and written responses of the student to identify and analyze both the student’s problems and progress. This information is the basis of planning the next lesson. That lesson is prescriptive in the sense that will contain instructional elements that focus upon the resolution of the student’s difficulties and that build upon the student’s progress noted in the previous lesson.
Direct Instruction
The teacher presentations employ lesson formats that ensure the student approaches the learning experience understanding what is to be learned, why it is to be learned, and how it is to be learned.
Systematic Phonics
It uses systematic phonics, stressing the alphabetic principle in the initial stages of reading development. It takes advantage of the sound/symbol relationships inherent in the alphabetic system of writing. Spoken words are made up of individual speech sounds, and the letters of written words graphically represent those speech sounds.
Applied Linguistics
It draws upon applied linguistics not only in the initial decoding and encoding stages of reading and writing but in more advanced stages dealing with syllabic, morphemic, syntactic, semantic, and grammatic structures of language and our writing system. At all times the Orton-Gillingham Approach involves the student in integrative practices that involve reading, spelling, and writing together.
Linguistic Competence
It increases linguistic competence by stressing language patterns that determine word order and sentence structure and the meaning of words and phrases. It moves beyond this to recognizing the various forms that characterize the common literary forms employed by writers.
Systematic and Structured
The teacher presents information in an ordered way that indicates the relationship between the material taught and past material taught. Curricular content unfolds in linguistically logical ways that facilitate student learning and progress.
Sequential, Incremental, and Cumulative
Step-by-step learners move from the simple, well-learned material to that which is more and more complex. They move from one step to the next as they master each level of language skills.
Continuous Feedback and Positive Reinforcement
The Approach provides for a close teacher-student relationship that builds self-confidence based on success.
Cognitive Approach
Students understand the reasons for what they are learning and for the learning strategies they are employing. Confidence grows as they gain in their ability to apply newly acquired knowledge about and knowledge how to develop their skills with reading, spelling, and writing.
Emotionally Sound
Students’ feelings about themselves and about learning are vital. Teaching is directed toward providing the experience of success. With success comes increased self-confidence and motivation.

Hawkin-2008-Foundations-for-literacy-an-eivdence-based-toolkit-for-the-effective-reading-and-writing-teacher.pdf (idaontario.com)

Consequences for no intervention:

​Delayed interventions:
Approx. 74% will continue to struggle with reading 
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/Supplement_1/916 

Inmate:

http://policeabc.ca/files/factsheets_englishPDFs/Literacy_factsheets_eng.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12443331_Prevalence_of_dyslexia_among_Texas_prison_inmates
http://www.lexion.co.uk/download/references/dyslexiabehindbars.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/leiladebruyne/2016/09/14/how-this-founder-gets-the-world-to-care-about-dyslexia/?sh=7779b7116507

PCAP:
https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/381/PCAP-2016-Public-Report-EN.pdf
Provincial reading scores:
https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/381/PCAP-2016-Public-Report-EN.pdf
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-students-worst-in-canada-in-math-science-and-reading-1.2789907

Dropout rates:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/75-006-x/2017001/article/14824-eng.pdf?st=ViMx1zEP


https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/dp95/97473-6.asp

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3529660/


Health:
https://abclifeliteracy.ca/health-literacy/


http://www.ldonline.org/article/19296


Early identification:
https://www.scilearn.com/2019-update-dyslexia-research/
https://osf.io/z4ryh/
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/39/9/1720
http://dyslexia.yale.edu/articles_directors/us-senate-help-committee-hearing/
https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(15)00823-9/fulltext
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/early-intervention-dyslexia-can-narrow-achievement-gap-uc-davis-study-says?id=11349
https://news.yale.edu/2015/11/03/closing-dyslexia-achievement-gap
http://dyslexia.yale.edu/advocacy/national-advocacy/science-of-dyslexia-hearing/
https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2Fmvuvhel6qaj8tghvu1nl75i0ndnlp0yz
https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-Specific-Learning-Disorder.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3855155/


Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle are making strides understanding how dyslexic brains work. Developmental neuropsychologist Virginia Berninger, Ph.D., and neurophysicist Todd Richards, Ph.D., lead a team of researchers whose studies have shown that the brains of children with dyslexia work about five times harder than other children's brains when performing the same language task.
http://faculty.washington.edu/toddr/dyslexic.htm

​
IQ:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-funded-study-finds-dyslexia-not-tied-iq

Reading Recovery is not for those who have LDs:

I am concerned about the fact that it is proven that Reading Recovery has negative impacts on students, the conflicts of interests for RR board members and RR training group president, and for the fact I have been told by several Reading Recovery teachers that dyslexia does not exist.

https://www.apmreports.org/story/2022/04/23/reading-recovery-negative-impact-on-children

https://rrcanada.org/about-cirr/

https://readingrecovery.org/rrcna/about-rrcna-2/?tmpl=component

https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-to-read-inquiry-report

https://youtu.be/Lxx7hs0qdKQ
​
Solutions: 
Picture
Picture
​https://sbptsdstor.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/medialib/literacy-standards-brochure.4ffc2a9588.pdf

Manitoba Education ELA Curriculum

English Language Arts Curriculum Framework: A Living Document (gov.mb.ca)
​
​https://sbptsdstor.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/medialib/literacy-standards-brochure.4ffc2a9588.pdf
Site powered by Weebly. Managed by Web Hosting Canada
Photo from hang_in_there
  • Home
  • Meet the Teacher
  • Services
  • Testimonials
  • Volunteer Advocacy Work
  • Contact
  • Links