In an extensive review of validation studies on the ten most frequently recommended procedures used for diagnosing learning disabilities, Gerald Coles evaluates the special knowledge claims made by learning-disabilities specialists. Finding that these procedures often lack a sound empirical base, he then explores why children continue to be diagnosed and labeled as learning disabled. Coles concludes that specialists in the field have resorted to biological explanations for institutional failures, focusing our attention, concern, and attempts at remediation on the child rather than on the social context in which that child must perform.

No abstract

Critics both within and outside the Learning Disabilities (LD) field have pointed to the weaknesses of LD theory. Beginning with the premise that a significant problem of LD theory has been its failure to explore fully its fundamental assumptions, this paper examines a number of these assumptions about individual and social development, cognition, and learning. These assumptions are compared with a contrasting body of premises found in Soviet psychology, particularly in the works of Vygotsky, Leontiev, and Luria. An examination of the basic assumptions of LD theory and Soviet psychology shows that a major difference lies in their respective nondialectical and dialectical interpretation of the relationship of social factors and cognition, learning, and neurological development.

No abstract

Since the end of the last century there have been studies of reading and learning problems which have concluded that a considerable proportion of these difficulties are inherited. This conclusion has been reaffirmed in recent investigations and explications of reading and learning "disabilities." Evidence for a heritability explanation has come from two sources: family and twin studies. An examination of these studies, however, demonstrates that although they appear to use the "scientific method" and are replete with quantified analysis, in fact they offer little substantial evidence for their conclusions. Moreover, they violate principles of logic and hypothesis testing to such an extent that they must be considered to be not merely inadequately scientific, but, indeed, pseudoscientific. Unfortunately, lack of evidence and egregious conclusions have not prevented the dissemination of heritability explanations among professionals and the public.Genetic interpretations of human characteristics and behavior abound today. There are genetic explanations of relatively delimited social areas, such as poverty, crime, and madness, as well as interpretations of immense topics relating to the evolution of the human social order. So numerous are these genetic interpretations that it is probably impossible to find a field concerned with people that does not include genetic explanations of its subject. The field of education certainly is not an exception.Within education is a long history of genetic explanations seeking to elucidate academic achievement in certain children and underachievement in others. Several years ago the center stage of genetic explanations in education was held by Arthur Jensen, with his interpretation of intelligence and IQ scores. The argument, resurrected by Jensen, that the genetic tranmission of intelligence determines academic success has, of course, always been the predominant genetic explanation within education. Now that it once again appears to have diminished in credibility, despite Jensen's recent book on IQ (Jensen, 1979), there is reason to feel heartened. However, in appraising the currency of genetic explanations in education, it is important to recognize not only that the heritability-of-IQ position still has considerable influence but also that while it has been the primary genetic theory in education, it has never been the only one. Alongside it, since the end of the last century, has been an associated explanation that, while not purporting to explain academic achievement with the broad strokes of the IQ theorists, nevertheless claims to explain the academic failure of a considerable proportion of youngsters. This genetic explanation lies within the academic areas of reading and learning disabilities; judging at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on June 26, 2015 sed.sagepub.com Downloaded from