A Critical Commentary on Neuropsychology in the Schools: Are We Ready?

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The other articles in this issue are discussed and criticized on three grounds. First, the other authors present an overly simplified view of brain functioning. Areas of the brain other than the cortex have dramatic effects on behavior. In addition, the localization hypothesis may not be tenable, it may not be reasonable to generalize findings from adults to children, and lateralization and hemispheric specialization may not be important constructs. Second, the use of neurological explanations and labels for school failure may lead to important and detrimental changes in expectations for the child by adults. Children's attributions for failure may also shift in an undesirable direction. Third, the educational utility of neuropsychology has not been high in the past and may not contribute to helpful interventions at present. Other psychological constructs and points of view may be just as rich in producing ideas for individual educational plans but have fewer negative side effects than the neuropsychological approach.