LD Blog

In a column for the MetroWest Daily News (Framingham, MA, USA) entitled “Standards takes ‘normal’ out of child’s reach,” Dan Greenberg comments on how concern about educational standards may have the unintended consequence of causing simple individual differences to be recognized as Learning Disabilities. Greenberg, who I think is the same Dan Greenberg widely respected for his reporting on science matters, argues that educational standards wrongly promote an expectation of uniformity among children.

Indeed, if you insist — as do the overwhelming majority of professional educators (and politicians of both parties) — that all children develop physically, intellectually and emotionally in the exact same manner (your child should be crawling by so many months, walking by so many months, talking by so many months — if not, you have cause for worry), then you should be aware that you will suddenly discover that more and more children turn out to be deviant in their development. If the world of children is treated like the world of machines, where even the slightest deviation from the “specs” requires repair, then it is not surprising that lots and lots of children need repair.

Predicated on this analysis, Greenberg argues that

Anyone who bothers to study the lists of “symptoms” that lead present-day schools to “identify” the so-called “learning disabilities” can spot immediately the basis on which they are all drawn up — namely, that any child that doesn’t conform to a rigid, narrowly defined standard of proper behavior is likely to be “disabled” in some way.

Greenberg carries his argument to this ending:

An unintended consequence of standardization of school curricula and tests has been the relegation of a huge proportion of our children (more than 20 percent, and growing) to the category of “learning-disabled” youngsters, many with little confidence in their potential or in their future. By trying to leave no child behind, we are in fact leaving an ever growing number of children not only behind, but unable ever to have the confidence in their ability to catch up with their “normal” peers.

Apart from the misinformation that undergirds his analysis, Greenberg’s analysis is a good one. Let’s start with the good part: If standards lead to the homogenization of children’s outcomes, those standards are something worthy of resistance. On that much I agree. On other points, however, I find his reporting and reasoning inadequate.

• Greenberg’s listing of the symptoms that identify Learning Disabilities appears to refer to a section of NICHY’s fact sheet on LD. That fact sheet has its own problems (fodder for another comment in this space), but the NICHY authors were appropriately circumspect about the diagnostic nature of the problems listed there. The authors of the page say “no one sign” is diagnostic (emphasis in original) and that seeing these characteristics should lead people to “consider the possibility that the child has a learning disability,” not to make a formal identification.
• As far as I know, even in Massachusetts, eligibility for special education is determined not by the number of checks by symptoms on a list, but by a team of professionals who examine a set of assessment data.
• Greenberg apprently bases his estimate of the prevalence of LD on NICHY’s fact sheet, which provides misleading information. In answer to the question, “How Common are Learning Disabilities,” NICHY replies “As many as 1 out of every 5 people in the United States has a learning disability.” Later in that same paragraph, NICHY refers to the 2002 Annual Report to Congress showing that only about 5-6% of the school-age population are identified as having LD. I can see how this might mislead a reader who doesn’t check the facts.
• I infer from his analysis that Greenberg sees LD as simple low achievement. As has been pretty clearly shown (see, e.g., Kavale. Fuchs, & Scruggs, 1994, LDR&P, 9, 70-77), students identified as having LD represent those experiencing the most severe forms of underachievement.
• Greenberg’s comments about students’ loss of confidence rendering them unable to succeed is at odds with evidence. See, for example, the Baumeister et al. paper referred to in Self-esteem Myth as well as my musings about Can’ts and Won’ts.
• The best standards for assessment are not aimed at reducing the variance in outcomes, do not offer “a rigid, narrowly defined standard.” Instead, they seek to set a minimum level of competence below which we hope our schools will not let students fall.

O.K. I’ll quit.