|Read a Post for The Incomplete Child: An Intellectual History of Learning Disabilities|
|Reply to this Post|
Incomplete Child or Incompetent Instruction?
|Posted By: Dick Schutz on March 9, 2010|
|It seems to me that" Learning Disabilities" has had a troubled, dysfunctional history, not a strong intellectual history. The reviewer's conclusion, " More attention to the complex field of actors and social and political factors and more discussion of the challenges faced in contemporary times would broaden the argument and better illuminate its relevance to today’s world" is a polite way of saying the same thing.|
The construct is a convenient "explanation" for kids who otherwise appear normal but can't read or compute and therefor are also "deficient" in other academic subjects. It's concluded, "the child is incomplete." A more likely possibility, however, is that the instruction the child has received has been inadvertently incompetent. This possibility is never entertained, let alone explored.
The current protocol of Response to Intervention is akin to the medieval Trial By Ordeal. The kid is given more of the same, in three "waves" of increasing intensity. If the third wave doesn't remediate the kid, this provides the "evidence" of "disability." The child will be stigmatized for life.
Some children learn the rudiments of how to handle the Alphabetic Code and the other linguistic conventions involved in written communication with very little formal instruction. More limp through inadvertent incompetent instruction. The schools take credit for these instructional accomplishments. The remaining failures are chalked up to "learning disabilities."
And the beat goes on.