No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

is executive director of the Achievement Center and chairman of special education at Purdue.IT IS INDEED TRUE that arose by any other name would smell just as sweet. The fragrance of roses is the important thing, and the name we give them does not matter at all. But when it comes to giving names to diagnostic categories in learning disabilities, the names we choose may be very important.The trouble is that names of diagnostic categories are different from names of roses. The difference is this: you can smell a rose, but you can't smell a diagnostic category. In other words, smelling a rose gives you a direct and immediate interaction with one aspect of the rose, and the name of the rose is not important. However, our interaction with diagnostic categories takes place on an intellectual level where there is no direct sensory experience which could compare with our rose-smelling behavior. Diagnostic categories do not smell (except metaphorically-a.nd we admit that a few come over to us as distinctly malodorous). Because diagnostic categories do not smell, the names we give them are more important than the names we give roses. Among architects there is an old cliche that goes something like this: &dquo;We shape our buildings, and afterward our buildings shape us.&dquo; We would paraphrase this to illustrate our major point: &dquo;We give names to diagnostic categories, and afterward the names shape the way we think about specific types of behavior.&dquo;We hasten to add that we are not pleading for more precision in definitions. Our feeling is that much of the present concern for precise definition in learning disabilities brings to mind the arid medieval debates on how many angels could dance on the point of a needle. Our concern, rather, is with the effect of diagnostic naming on our interpretation of the behavior we observe. We offer the following example to highlight our concern.