Which queue?

• Date: 01 May 1999
• Author: Sternberg, Robert J.

JUMPING THE QUEUE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL TREATMENT OF STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES. By Mark Kelman and Gillian Lester. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pp. xi, 313. $39.95.

It is annoying when one is in a long line -- at a ticket counter, at a supermarket, at a bank -- and someone "jumps the queue," taking a position in line ahead of other people who lined up first. The title of Mark Kelman(1) and Gillian Lester's(2) book, Jumping the Queue, gives the reader advance warning of the authors' position on people who edge ahead in line. But the topic of their book is not ticket, supermarket, or bank lines, but rather the line to enjoy the benefits of society. And the focus of the analysis of queue-jumpers is not on customers in the commercial marketplace, but on a particular group of students in the academic marketplace. These students are ones who have been identified as having learning disabilities.

Kelman and Lester's book covers diverse topics in its eight chapters totaling 313 pages, including technical controversies (pp. 17-36), the federal regulatory framework (pp. 37-66), local practice (including diagnosis and placement) (pp. 67-92), resource management and discipline (pp. 93-116), extra resources for the classroom teacher (pp. 117-60), accommodation on law school exams (pp. 16194), and ideology and entitlement (pp. 195-226). There are many points of view from which learning disabilities can be approached, and the authors' point of view, indicated by the subtitle, "an inquiry into the legal treatment of students with learning disabilities." The subtitle is appropriate; the book reads more as an inquiry than as a presentation of a strong stand regarding what needs to be done, legally or otherwise. At times, the authors' unwillingness to take strong or even clearcut stands is frustrating.(3) Conclusions often get lost in what, for two reviewers who are psychologists, appear to be technical legal thickets.(4) But it is clear that Kelman and Lester are skeptical of the preferential treatment given to those identified with learning disabilities, because they point out -- correctly, we believe -- that the accommodations that benefit individuals identified as having learning disabilities would benefit virtually anyone (pp. 17273). The authors also express skepticism of whether the system is just, granting as it does special legal privileges to those who have no unique moral, psychological, or educational claim to these privileges (Chapter 8).

Because the book is an examination primarily of legal issues, it addresses somewhat superficially what we believe to be the most fundamental problem pertaining to learning disabilities. This problem is that the concept as it is used in practice is invalid. We have no doubt that the concept of a learning disability is, in theory, veridical. But there is a big gap between theory and practice. We seek in this review to deal with this issue, because it renders the societal legal discussion moot. The laws cannot be just if they are based on a classificatory system that makes little or no psychological or educational sense. The book also may make a false assumption in assuming there is a single queue. Neither success, nor abilities, nor practically anything else that really matters in life is unidimensional. Learning disabilities certainly are not.

1. DEFINING A LEARNING DISABILITY

   Specific learning disabilities have been defined in a number of different ways. A consensus view has emerged that is expressed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) according to which learning disabilities (referred to as "learning disorders" in DSM-IV) are marked impairments in the development of specific skills, such as reading skills, relative to the level of skills expected on the basis of an individual's age, education, and intelligence.(5) The term for this is "differential" skills. These impairments interfere with daily life and academic achievement. They are not due, however, to physical deficits, such as visual or hearing deficits, or to acquired neurological conditions, such as those caused by brain trauma. Learning disabilities seldom can be diagnosed before the end of kindergarten or the beginning of first grade. In practice, these disabilities tend to be identified on the basis of differences in performance on tests of abilities and tests of achievement.

   In its effort to categorize students and define recipients of benefits, both the law and Jumping the Queue take for granted the validity of this definition and method of detecting learning disabilities. The thesis for this review is that this assumption is incorrect on its face. We view learning disabilities in a way that is somewhat contrary to this kind of standard definition. Our thesis is that virtually everyone has some kind of learning disability but that society only chooses to recognize some individuals as such. Whether someone is labeled as learning disabled in many respects resembles the result of a lottery.(6) Here's why.

   All reputable theorists of abilities agree that abilities are multiple -- that there are many of them.(7) Even Charles Spearman, the father of the theory of general ability, stated that in addition to a general ability that applies to all tasks there are specific abilities that apply to specific tasks.(8) No serious psychological theorist, to our knowledge, has claimed that there is only one kind of ability. Although theorists may disagree as to exactly what the abilities are or how they are structured, they agree that the abilities are distinguishable from each other. For example, the skills that constitute reading ability are different from the skills that constitute mathematical ability, which are in turn different from the skills that constitute musical ability.(9) Thus, someone could be an able reader but a poor musician, or vice-versa. Perhaps not in school, but almost certainly later in life, the person who seeks a career that uses mathematics heavily will be standing in a different queue from the person who uses music heavily.

   Because abilities are multiple, it is odd that the operational definition of learning disabilities so often relies on the measurement of IQ. The use of a single quantity for an IQ implies a unitary basis for intelligence that does not exist in psychological theory and is extremely unlikely to exist in reality.

   If one were to make a list of the many abilities people can have, one would find that virtually no one is proficient in all the skills constituting all of these abilities. At the same time, virtually no one is hopelessly inept in all of these skills. Rather, almost everyone is more proficient than are other people in some skills and less proficient in other skills. Some people may be proficient in more skills, or more proficient in certain skills, but virtually everyone shows a pattern of multiple strengths and multiple weaknesses.

   Put another way, virtually everyone shows a complex pattern of abilities and disabilities. For example, even the straight-A student in school may be inept in certain aspects of interpersonal relations. Even the straight-F student in school may be able in many aspects of dealing with other people. This intuition is captured in modern theories of intelligence, which argue on the basis of plentiful and diverse data that interpersonal and practical skills actually are distinct from traditional academic skills. High levels of these different kinds of skills may or may not be found in the same persons.

   Given that everyone has a pattern of abilities and disabilities, how does it happen that some people get labeled as having learning disabilities whereas other people do not? The reason is that labeling of someone as having a learning disability is the result of an interaction between the individual and the society. Learning disability resides neither totally in the individual nor totally in the society. It is not simply a matter of having a certain set of genes nor is it simply a matter of society's defining someone who is perfectly adaptive as having a disability. Rather, the society selects some people to label as having learning disabilities and does not select others.

   Our point of view differs from a common view, which is intrinsic and states that learning abilities reside within the individual. Our point of view also differs from the view that learning abilities are extrinsic and reside solely in the labeling of society.(10) We argue that both of these views are untenable.

   How does society decide whom to label? It decides on the basis of the set of skills that it values in school and on the job. If society views a certain set of skills (such as reading skills) as essential, and views them as constituting a "specific" rather than a general ability, then individuals with low levels of proficiency in these skills are labeled as having a specific disability. One has a set of abilities and disabilities and metaphorically enters a lottery that determines whether the particular pattern will result in a learning disability label. We are not saying that the labeling process is wholly arbitrary. Rather, we are saying that there are many different possible labeling processes that can yield totally different results. The discussion in Jumping the Queue is based upon a common legal conception of learning disability that is only one of many different conceptions a society might have.

2. DISABILITY AS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSON AND ENVIRONMENT

   Our society, through federal law as instantiated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),(11) currently recognizes various types of learning disabilities: listening, speaking, basic reading skills, reading comprehension skills, written expression, arithmetic calculation skills, and mathematics reasoning skills.(12) Many other skills might be included on this list. For example, the...