Diffability: focusing on potential.

My basic argument is that diffability should be the primary perspective and overarching concept, and that disability should be the secondary perspective that operates under the diffability umbrella. In starting this blog, my hope is that I am seeding a conversation that will lead to this change.

In the mean time, I use the current language of the field without cringing (too much). My hope is that the language can be changed, and that as this happens we will find ourselves relating to each other and to our children in ways that are fundamentally different — more inclusive, more effective, and much more productive. If we see children as diffabled, we — and they — will be more likely to focus on our potentials.

Come back often! Bring a friend!

- Dave

My bias.

As someone who has had to ponder the personal impact of learning differences (my own) — as well as the labels that are attached to them, I prefer to see “disabilities” as differences and strengths and potentials — as what is and can be, rather than what isn’t. That said, I see the value of defining, diagnosing, and remediating disabilities. There is value in working to improve things that we do not do so well. So my concern is not with the search for disabilities and the efforts to remediate them. Rather, my concern is with the fact that we start by looking for disabilities, rather than for diffabilities. I am concerned that this “dis-centric” approach drives education and educators to an unhealthy degree.

On a personal level, I am more interested in not continuing to pound my square-peg-self through a series to round holes. I am more interested in leveraging what I do well. I am interested in my abilities. I struggled for many years to overcome what isn’t. I won’t say that it was a waste of my time, because it wasn’t. I learned from it. But things didn’t start to work for me until I broadened my focus and started to work on my abilities — on my diffabilities. That meant remediating (fixing) the learning environment and the tools for learning so that there was a better fit for my diffabilities, more so than remediating (fixing) my disabilities.

You can read more about this here:http://www.textmapping.org/whWorkshopNotes.html#introductionHead.

Come back often! Bring a friend!

- Dave

Goodness of Fit.

From the diffability-perspective, success and failure are fundamentally a question of goodness of fit: http://www.personalitytheory.org/perproj/others/heineman/fit.htm

* A focus on disability puts the onus on students to fit in, and on teachers to teach them to fit.

* A focus on diffability, in contrast, puts the onus on students and teachers to work together to find a fit.

Some teachers already focus on diffability. Some do it a lot. Some only do it a little. It would be better if more did it, and even better if more did it on a regular basis. To that end, I’ll simply say that it makes more sense to me — that it seems more actionable and productive and respectful — to spend more time and effort looking for a goodness of fit than for a disability.

Come back often! Bring a friend!

- Dave

Disabilities? I can live with it.

I’d like to see diffabilities promoted over disabilities as the primary focus of educators who are trying to help struggling students. That said, I think that “disabilities” is useful idea. I don’t like the label, but I can live with it. On balance, the idea is a good one. I just think it should be subsumed under “diffabilities”.

I am aware of the concerns about labeling and learned helplessness, and I am aware of the challenges to the scientific accuracy of our current working definitions for learning disabilities. These are interesting and useful and important lines of thinking. But I think that they will become obsolete arguments as we shift from seeing students as disabled to diffabled. Both continue to thrive only because we allow them to. They are, from the viewpoint of diffabilities, irrelevant.

Neither gets to the heart of the matter, which is that we all learn differently, that our differences are often our greatest strengths, and that focusing on diffablities is most likely the best way to tap into those strengths and help all students realize their potential.

Come back often! Bring a friend!

- Dave

Building on what we do well.

I think that there is value in starting from the viewpoint that all students have diffabilities, and that some of these diffabilities are successful, and some are not. The diffabilities that are not successful might be viewed as disabilities in the context of school or the workplace or our particular society, but they are, nonetheless, abilities that can be harnessed to serve some purpose. The challenge for teachers is to help students build on what they do well in order to complete the work that we all must do.

Diffability doesn’t involve the leap to judgement that disability does. It is simply an observation — a recognition of “fact”. From there, we can move directly into tapping into and developing abilities, as well as less-judgementally into remediating disabilties where this seems useful and productive. Starting from a statement of diffability allows us to begin from a more neutral position. It allows us to see students more clearly — unclouded by the haze of “dis-focused” judgement. It allows us to see the potential in each student. It allows us to think about building (developing) in addition to just fixing (remediating).

Starting from a statement of diffability prompts us to wonder whether any of the tools that we have in our toolbox are right for a particular job. Instead of thinking, “This wrench will work“, it prompts us to think: “If there were a tool that really did fit this particular job, what would it look like?” From my point of view, this would be a much better place from which to start.

Come back often! Bring your friends!

- Dave

Let’s turn this thing on its head.

I am going to spout a generalization.  I know that it is not true for everyone.  It is a generalization.  It might not be about you:

We spend too much time worrying about disabilities.

By this, I mean that we spend too much time trying to define and identify and fix (remediate) the things that students are failing at.  I think it would be healthier and more productive if we were to change our outlook — arguably, this would entail taking a broader view and shifting our priorities.  When we see a student struggling, we should look for  diffabilities first.  We should spend some serious time and effort doing this.  We should look for successes, and build on them.

Once we’re engaged in building from successes, improving on the things that students don’t do so well will take on an entirely different character.  Remediation will be…..a good thing.

Come back often!  Bring your friends!

- Dave

Welcome to Learning Diffabilites

I would like to start a conversation about diffabilites. That’s diFF-abilities. This isn’t a new word. If you search for it on the web, you’ll find lots of different perspectives on it. For example, here is a definition from a site I found called Word Spy: http://www.wordspy.com/words/diff-ability.asp.

Note how this defines “diffabilities” with respect to “disabilities” — as if “diffabilties” are a kind of “disability”. I’d like to flip that definition over. I’d like to define “disabilities” with respect to “diffabilities”. And then I’d like to define “diffabilities” simply as “different abilities”.

That makes more sense to me.

Come back often! Bring your friends!

- Dave