In Mehan's summary he pointed out,
"The recommendations voiced in a psychological idiom were accepted by the
committee without challenge or question, while the recommendations voiced in
a sociological and historical
idiom were routinely interrupted with requests for clarification and further
information. That is, representations of the child expressed in
dispositional terms prevailed over representations of the child expressed in
contextual or historical terms. The psychological language was bolstered by
a technical vocabulary. While the classroom teacher reported information she
had gained from first hand observation over a school year, she did not
provide specific data. So, too, the mother reported on first hand
information, obtained over the student's lifetime, but it too was formulated
in general terms. The technical, quasi- scientific mode of representing
Shane helped defeat the competing modes of representing him and contributed
to the construction of his
identity as a learning disabled child."
I think one difference may be the discourse itself. Coles definately
approaches the subject by taking the "technical, quasi-scientific mode" of
representing "learning disabled" children to task, whereas, Mehan in many
ways is more like the parent or teacher. Both seem to have concerns about
how the knowledge-power of the field affects children's lives, but Coles'
critiqes this practice within the technical, quasi-scientific mode.
In many ways critiques like Mehan's are easier to take because they question
the discourse from "outside" which like the info from the teacher or parent
are often negated in a variety of ways. Awhile ago, I read *Lifelines:
Biology beyond Determinism* by Steven Rose and he made arguments very
similar to Coles. I vistited an "ADHD" site the other night and it said
something to the tune that a teacher or parent can not determine if a
student has "ADHD" because diagnosis is not clear cut and only a
"professional" (science) can make this determination. There of course is a
degree of wisdom in such an assertion, and in this context Coles becomes
dangerous in a way Mehan does not.
Coles offers his own theory of "interactivity" which incorporates
interactive and activity into an anaysis of "learning disability". I don't
see this much different than what I have seen from Mehan. Both seem to call
for an analysis that goes beyond "interactive" (teacher-student,
child-environment)to look at the role of social structures. I do think
certain structures are left out of Coles analysis in that if the term
"learning disability" loses its scientific, biolgical "truth" the child also
loses financial and educational support.
There is a pragmatic cultural reality that if such terms like "ADHD" or
"learning disability" loose their scientific justification it becomes
another neo-liberal way to save money. In a perfect world we would not label
and essentialize and whatever kid needed support would get it. With some
experience in "special ed" there is an important history that is left out of
Coles story. As Vygotsky describes in "Defectology" children seen as
"backward", "inattentive", or "hyper" have a history in the "regular" school
system that is not worth repeating. As a culture the biological, natural,
and measureable carry alot of wait. While this may be a "cultural
construction" it has definate material consequences.
Nate
-----Original Message-----
From: Ellice A Forman [mailto:ellice+ who-is-at pitt.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 2:03 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Coles and Mehan
Dear Mike and others,
My concern about Gerald Coles' interpretation of learning disabilities
comes from some conversations I've had with Addison Stone (Northwestern
University--not currently on xmca to my knowledge) who also has extensive
clinical experience in the field of learning disabilities and extensive
research and theoretical experience with CHAT. Unfortunately, I don't
remember much of the gist of those conversations but I'll see if I can get
Addison's current take on these issues.
Ellice
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:02:02 PST