Deficit Thinking Approach to Dyslexia and ADHD

This post includes:

• The meaning and history of the deficit thinking approach that is guiding contemporary educational policies
• A brief introduction to an alternative socio-cultural approach

From a Deficit Thinking point of view we ask:

What is wrong within this person and how can we fix it to make them fit into and conform to the standard norm?

So Expert-Professionals use standardized intelligence testing to determine a diagnosis of the deficit which is based on how the test results deviate from the statistical standard norm.

Alternatively (Vygotsky’s and my approach)

From a Socio-Cultural point of view we ask:

How can the environment (teachers, teachings, instruction, policies) support and accommodate the strengths and challenges of all diverse learners?

So any educator can screen students at early age using free academic or behavioural resources to reveal strengths and challenges and to provide individualized educational, behavioural, or psychological support

The Origin of Deficit Thinking

Psychologists, physicians, and educators throughout history have sought to understand how best to identify learning difficulties and to develop interventions for improving the academic outcomes of students who could not, for various reasons, meet the rigid standardized academic expectations in school.

            As far back as the 1800s educators and psychologists described students with learning difficulties as “feebleminded” or even hypothesized that the cause for emotional and behavioural deviation might be masturbation (Trent et al., 1998). Treatments for learning difficulties ranged from food purging and the practice of the religious intervention of exorcism to blaming the individual for not working hard enough to achieve the desired outcomes or obedient behaviour.

            A more modern version of this notion is defining differences in learning abilities as deficits by placing the cause for their functioning merely on their innate abilities with no consideration of how the environment can also change to meet their needs.

There is an assumption that students who do not conform academically or behaviourally must to be diagnosed for what is wrong with them now rather than identified for their needs and strengths in order to provide them with accommodations and supports for their future growth.

Contemporary Expressions of the Deficit Thinking

            For my doctorate research I interviewed, in 2016, a 16-year-old Canadian student about her learning difficulties. She chose to share with me what her grandfather shared with her about his grade six experience in school. The memory that was engraved in him and was passed on to her was that in school he had to wear a paper crown with the label “I am dumb.” She explained that like her, he was bright in many other different ways but reading was not one of them.

            Other Canadian students with learning difficulties, as early as in grade one, regarded themselves as stupid due to their difficulties of learning to read at the pace of their classmates (Click Here to Read my Dissertation). Although educational policies changed since the time that it was acceptable to scold students for learning differences, these devastating experiences, either the dumb hat or a feeling of inadequacy, continue to take place in schools.

Criticism for the Deficit Thinking

Examining learning and development from the lens of deficit thinking means focusing on the problem with the intention to find out the problems in order to fix them. That seems reasonable and familiar from the medical model. For example, a patient reports having a symptom of joints pain and difficulties walking up the stairs. The best response would be to diagnose the cause for the pain, try to eliminate it, or treat the symptoms and heal the pain. In education the medical model is not fully applicable. Learning and development are not static conditions that can be described in one snapshot of an examination like x-rays would.

            Nevertheless, in our schools, intelligence testing attempts to determine life long diagnosis based on a few hours of testing at one time of a young student’s development. Test scores place the student in a statistical range that determines arbitrarily if students are diagnosed with dyslexia or ADHD. The critical socio-cultural information of what interventions or other influences were available or missing in the child’s life, that may have supported or deprived development, are not included in the diagnosis criteria. Diagnosis is based on test results assuming innate deficit with no sufficient consideration of what individualized instruction methods were used or not used to teach the student thus far.

            On the other hand, the socio-cultural approach suggests that students must be identified for, both, their strengths and challenges. Identification is an on-going­ – on a regular basis – not just one, for the purpose of providing learners with the supports they need as they grow and improve. A diagnosis is for the sake of diagnosis–lacking a growth mindset–if it only serves the purpose of explaining the current difficulties without accommodating and addressing students’ needs and progress. When educators focus only on the diagnosis of difficulties, with no focus on intervention for progress, they are essentially rejecting their responsibility to the student to help them learn and develop. This contradicts a growth and improvement mindset as without also emphasizing students’ strengths, a diagnosis reflects a limited deficit thinking approach that does not empower the individual.

            Using the example of joint pain mentioned above to explain the limitation of the deficit thinking in education, imagine not providing the person with accommodations and assistance such as crutches or a wheelchair with accessibility of a ramp if they need it. Imagine expecting them to try harder to walk after having diagnosed them with joint pain that limits their movement. Now they are on their own to figure out how to function within existing environment and expectations. Would they feel respected and empowered?    

Aspects of The Deficit Thinking

The following are a few aspects and the origin of the deficit thinking relevant to how educators may address learning difficulties of students (Valencia, 1997, 2010):

            Blaming the victim involves first identifying learning problems or delayed academic performance as belonging to an individual or groups of students. Next, comparing these students with their age group emphasizes their difference as deficits and then identifying cognitive differences as the causes for their academic difficulties. And finally, only then after they have been diagnosed based on normative comparisons, designing interventions to correct those differences. Alternatively, supporting students’ academic learning needs or behaviour with academic teachings or executive functions support at early age based on equity of resources and accountability by measuring their continuous progress rather then static diagnosis.

            Oppression was practiced by people in authority to establish policies at the state and local level to avoid change. For example, in Canada, British Columbia, students with average cognitive abilities who experience learning difficulties are eligible to special education resources, once diagnosed. However, students with below-average test scores are not eligible to special education resources and also do not have the privilege, ironically, of being diagnosed. A diagnosis is considered a privilege because it is assigned only to those who have average cognitive abilities, and thus have proved the ability to learn but cannot due to their deficiency. This policy is an example of oppression. That is because the results of cognitive testing (as we all know) is based on 1) general knowledge, learned at home, and 2) problem solving skills, also demonstrated at home. The power of higher standard of living allows the privilege of being diagnosed. Higher scores are more likely to be achieved by students from families with funding than by poor families who struggle with survival challenges.

            Poor students with not much general knowledge and not much enrichment for problem solving skills, often have lower scores on standardized tests. Lower scores means that they are not eligible to be diagnosed which means no access to special education resources and this finally leads to even more deprivation of learning.

            Relying on cognitive testing results as the marker for resource allocation and establishing categories of “average” affords power to those who are expected to score high on the tests and suggest oppression to those who are likely to score low on the test, and possibly be treated as less than “normal”.

            Pseudoscience refers to unsound conclusions and use of psychometric measures combined with researcher bias. Test results reflect one’s snapshot of performance at any given time. Cognitive measures only reflect the degree of correlation between test score and hypothesized construct of a cognitive ability within a given age group. Test scores do not include calculations of a person history, culture, values, responsiveness at time of test, and mood at the time of testing. Test results also do not include the dynamic between the student and the psychologist administering the test. These limitations of the standardized testing produces scores that are not as accurate and scientific as they claim to be.

            Alternatively, weekly monitoring the progress of students, who receive the needed individualized instruction, is more promising to be scientifically accurate in describing students abilities and academic performance.

            Educability is the notion that academic success depends on individual intellectual abilities. Environmental influences of social, political, and economic conditions are considered unrelated to academic success if standardized tests results define who is diagnosed and what educational resources are cost-effective to be allocated to them. In the past, the perspective that individuals with learning disabilities were not educable lead to institutionalization for life, and harsh treatment. Some scientist refuted this notion of hereditarianism as the sole influence on performance. However, intelligence-testing scores, perceived as innate abilities, are in the foundation of educational policies and planning regarding learning disabilities even at a very young age.

            As reflected in educational practices, planning, and policies, the reliance on testing cognitive abilities to understand the nature of students’ learning difficulties is in accordance with the deficit thinking assumption that the cause for learning delays is hereditary and to be found within the individual. This approach, focused on the diagnosis of a deficit innate to the individual similar to the medical model approach but missing the emphasis on the most important aspect of the medical model that is the intervention and resources to accommodate the needs and build on strengths.

Socio-Cultural Approach to Learning and Development 

            Sociocultural influences emphasizing the significant positive impact of educational interventions over the diagnosis and pays more attention to external influences. As suggested by Vygotsky about 100 years ago, the socio-cultural approach is beginning nowadays to penetrate the collective awareness in the form of discourse on equity, diversity, and ableism. Yet, standardized testing in search for cognitive deficits and diagnosis takes the majority of the educational funding and leaves little to systemic educational interventions.

            Treatments and diagnosis, based on the socio-cultural approach, need to be beyond the focus on the individual alone, and include consideration for the influences of available or missing educational interventions. Environmental influences such as instruction, learning climates, teachers’ proficiency and wellbeing, student-teacher relationships, students’ strengths, students’ autonomy in exploring and inquiring, have scientific credibility for impacting learning, need to be taken into account in identifying learning needs or a diagnosis of deficits.

            Finally, a strengths-based approach for learning includes consideration of individual’s strengths of creative abilities that are not measured by the standardized cognitive ability testing. Building on students’ assets and providing consistent intensive individualized resources and supports for their growth while also relying on the plasticity of their brains to learn and change so they thrive and compensate for learning or behaviour differences.