High Roads and Low Roads: Learning Disabilities in California, 1976–1998

Abstract

This study examines the historical relationships among privilege, race, and learning disability (LD) diagnosis. Whereas recent research links disability diagnosis primarily with racial and socioeconomic disadvantage (assuming a "low road" to disability), it is argued that in the case of LD, privileged children initially received the most diagnoses (suggesting a "high road" to disability). Using California data from 1976, 1986, and 1998, this study explores causes of LD diagnosis by examining the effects of students' individual race and district-level minority proportion. Initially, LD diagnosis appears at markedly higher rates in low-minority districts. Over time, this effect diminishes, while the effect of individual race increases, with black and Hispanic students becoming increasingly likely to receive an LD diagnosis as compared to white students. This article then discusses the critical implications of these findings for disability studies, and the relationship of social privilege to parents' role in determining the identification and accommodation of disabilities.

Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Language

“…In contrast to all other racial/ethnic groups combined, American Indian/Alaska Native students were 1.8 times more likely and Hispanic students were 1.1 times more likely to receive special education services for specific learning disabilities (OSEP 2007). Although previous literature has tended to focus on the disproportional identification of black students with mental retardation and emotional disturbance (OSEP 2007; Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Gibb, Rausch, Cuadrado, and Chung 2008), there is evidence to suggest that the gap between black and white students in rates of identification with a learning disability has increased since the 1970s, with blacks being increasingly more likely to be identified (Ong-Dean 2006). Asian students are at lower risk than white students of being in receipt of special education services for a learning disability (OSEP 2007).…”

“…The fact that disproportional identification with a learning disability occurs among groups who are already socially disadvantaged – racial/ethnic minorities, language minorities, students of low socioeconomic status (SES) – is of particular concern to both educators and researchers (Anderson 1997; Coutinho and Oswald 2005; Daniels 1998; Deshler, Lenz, Bulgren, Schumaker, David, Grossen, and Marquis 2004). Disproportionality raises concerns about the validity and reliability of the label “learning disabled” (Giovingo, Proctor, and Prevatt 2005), and/or suggests that placement in special education may function as a tool of discrimination (McDermott, Goldman, and Varenne 2006; Ong-Dean 2006; Reid and Knight 2006). Accurate diagnoses of learning disability are generally of interest in the hopes of facilitating a timely and appropriate response from the education system to the unique needs of students.…”

Medical diagnosis of dyslexia in a Swedish elite school: A case of “consecrating medicalization”

“…Rather, it is an elite community in a social and communicative sense. Indeed, the dyslexia diagnosis seems almost a perfect match to elites, as it not only enables them to re‐produce themselves and uphold their privileges but they don’t even have to pay the price in terms of stigma as other classes typically have to (see Hale ; Ong‐Dean, ).…”

“…Medicalization is the processes by which all the more human behaviors are defined and treated as medical problems and issues, typically presented as “disabilities” (Ballard & Elston, ; Conrad, ; Zola, ). This well‐known phenomenon may contribute to produce and re‐produce classes and has therefore some potentially important implications for understanding social stratification in contemporary society (see Cameron & Billington, ; Ong‐Dean, ). In a world beset with performance and activity and the personalization of social problems, a number of studies have proposed how, for instance, the unemployed, the homeless, and the poor are being classified as disabled, resulting in their further social exclusion (see, e.g., Caswell, Marston, & Elm Larsen, ; Garsten & Jacobsson, ; Holmqvist, ; Lane, ; Mathieu, ; Schram, ).…”

“…However, studies have also suggested how medicalization can lead to positive outcomes: medical labels and categories of disability may provide access to economic and social resources, relieving people from certain roles and responsibilities, and evading blame and responsibility (see, e.g., Hale, ; Ong‐Dean, ). In my own observations of long‐term unemployed blue‐collar workers, being formally classified as “occupationally disabled” by a welfare system was by some seen an attractive option, as it promised economic benefits in terms of employment in certain government agencies and made their previous unemployment appear less socially problematic (see Holmqvist, ).…”