Mind over Matter But writing Levine off as a gooey, feel-good lightweight will not do.

Indeed,
Levine, a professor of pediatrics at the University of North Carolina Medical School
Daniel T. Willingham and director of UNC’s Clinical Center for the Study of Development and Learning, is
Checked: that rare author whose work affects not only millions of parents, but hundreds of
The Myth of Laziness school systems as well. While The Myth of Laziness had some success, his 2002
(Simon & Schuster, 2003) book, A Mind at a Time, reached #1 on the New York Times best-seller list and
brought coverage by the national media, including (every publisher’s happiest hope)
an appearance on Oprah. And in 2005, Levine added a third work, Ready or Not,
A Mind at a Time Here Life Comes, which tackles the transition from adolescence to adulthood. By this
(Simon & Schuster, 2002) time, his second book’s success had already given a significant boost to All Kinds of
Minds, a nonprofit organization Levine cofounded in 1995 to promote his theories. A
subsidiary program, Schools Attuned, trains teachers to recognize and address
By Mel Levine
learning problems in children. So far eight training centers have been set up in North
Checked by Daniel T. Willingham America.

Levine’s project got a push when state legislatures in North Carolina and
Oklahoma allocated funds allowing any public school K-12 teacher to attend the
course with substantial or complete remission of the $1,500 tuition. Then in May
2004, the New York City Department of Education signed a five-year contract with All
Kinds of Minds worth about $12.5 million to train 20,000 city teachers. By the time 60
Minutes aired a story on the children of baby boomers last fall, Levine was called
“one of the foremost authorities in the country on how children learn.”

There are two questions that parents and educators should ask about
Levine’s program. First, Is his theory of how the mind works correct? Theories of
learning disabilities (including Levine’s) are theories of what happens when learning
abilities have gone wrong. If you mischaracterize the abilities, your description of
potential problems is inaccurate. As I’ll describe, Levine’s broad-strokes account of
the mind agrees with that of most researchers (and for that matter, with the observant
layman): there is a memory system, an attention system, and so on. But it’s the
detailed structure Levine claims to see within each of those systems that really drives
his proposed treatments for disabled children, and on those details Levine is often
Mel Levine writes about learning disabilities in a way that sometimes invites wrong. The second question one should ask is, Does the evidence indicate that his
satire. The premise of his 2003 book, The Myth of Laziness, for example, is that a proposed treatments help? The answer is that there is no evidence, positive or
child who appears lazy probably doesn’t lack motivation, but rather suffers from negative, as to whether or not the program helps kids. Given the inaccurate
“output failure.” It is tempting to have a good laugh and say, “Where were you when I description of the mind on which it is based, however, it seems unlikely that it will
was in school, Doc?” prove particularly effective.
 case typifies those described in the book: an able mind is foiled by a single weak link,
and the child is failed by the school system’s inability to identify and address the
problem.

Levine suggests a number of measures to help kids like Vance, some of

which are standard practice in the field-for example, accommodations or
workarounds in the classroom. The child with a long-term memory problem might be
permitted to use notes during a test; the idea is that with this long-term memory
support, Vance will be able to show his cognitive strengths such as analytic skills or
effective writing. Levine also suggests that teachers take care not to accidentally
embarrass children with learning disabilities. For example, Vance’s teacher should
ensure that other children don’t know that he has any accommodation.

In fact, the same common treatment practices that Levine suggests are
rooted in assumptions about the nature of learning disabilities. For example, the
strategy of allowing accommodations is based on the widely accepted belief among
educational and cognitive psychologists that learning disabilities may strike a specific
cognitive process, like memory, but leave others, like attention, intact. As to the
emphasis on the students’ dignity, that too is based on the consensus view that
learning disabilities are inborn and specific. The disabled child is not stupid or lazy
and should not be blamed for his or her problem.

Levine argues forcefully that learning disabilities are inborn and specific. Both
propositions, however, are already well known to those in the field. In 2002, the same
year that Levine published A Mind at a Time, ten different national organizations,
including the Department of Education and the Learning Disabilities Association of
America, released a report describing points of consensus about learning disabilities.
These two points-and others that Levine proposes-were among them. One could
argue, on Levine’s behalf, that some parents and teachers do not share these beliefs
Old Ideas in a New Package and that A Mind at a Time is meant to bring important research conclusions to a
broader public. The problem, however, is that Levine departs from these consensus
Levine proposes that the human mind has eight major cognitive systems-and conclusions to make a host of claims about learning disabilities that are not
many more subsystems (see Figure 1). Much of A Mind at a Time describes, through supported by solid research.
case studies, what happens when one or more of these systems or subsystems fails.
For example, he tells the story of Vance, who dropped out of the 9th grade. Levine’s Theory
According to Levine, Vance was strong in reading and math, but he could not
Let’s examine the architecture of the mind that Levine proposes, which
remember facts. Levine diagnosed Vance’s problem as a deficit in long-term
serves as the theoretical backdrop for his analysis of learning disabilities. Most
memory, one of the subsystems of memory. Despite a mind that worked well in most
researchers in cognitive science (and of learning disabilities) would agree with the top
respects, this one glitch left Vance an academic failure, frustrated and shamed. The
level of the hierarchy in Figure 1: attention, memory, and motor control are separate, “research base” for the program. This research base consists of eight works, all by
though interactive, systems. The separability is important because it implies that if a Levine and coauthors, none of which appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.
system is faulty, the other systems might still operate well. But these systems do
interact; it’s obvious that if you don’t pay attention in class (due to a faulty attention A review of these works reveals that they do not marshal research evidence
system), you don’t learn, even if your memory system works well. (I will return to the to support their conclusions. Instead, they present the same ideas contained in A
question of interactions below.) Mind at a Time, citing a few references that support well-accepted ideas-or example,
that attention capacity is limited-but none to shore up Levine’s particular views.
Although the top level of the hierarchy is standard stuff, the second and third Sometimes the citation makes no sense whatever, as when Levine and coauthor
levels of the hierarchy he proposes are anything but. And that’s the part of the theory Martha Reed cite a 1993 paper by Richard McKee and Larry Squire for the idea that
that Levine puts to work. Children are diagnosed and treated using concepts at the declarative knowledge is consolidated in categories, enabling growth in knowledge as
second and third level of the hierarchy. In some cases, the specific subsystems the child gets older. In fact, the McKee and Squire study had nothing to do with the
Levine identifies arguably exist-there are probably different levels of language categorization of declarative knowledge-it was an investigation of the neural basis of
processing much like those mentioned by Levine-but there is no research, for a memory paradigm often used in infants.
example, to support the existence of his 5 subprocesses of “higher order thinking” nor
his 14 subprocesses of attention. Since Levine makes little use of existing research on the mind’s function, it
would appear that he leans heavily on his interpretations of clinical cases that he
Levine’s view of sequential ordering is also inconsistent with the evidence. sees in his practice. Clinical case studies are always dangerous sources of evidence
He appears to assign any function involving time to this process, from dribbling a because there is a tendency to “see” in these cases what one’s theory leads one to
basketball to punctuality. In fact, although dribbling a basketball entails timing, it is an expect. Even setting that problem aside, Levine makes some mistakes in interpreting
unusual case of sequencing because the movement is largely repetitive. And there is his clinical observations.
no reason to think that keeping appointments calls on sequencing-it calls on a type of
memory scientists call prospective memory. In another odd distinction, Levine argues One problem lies in Levine’s moving from children’s symptoms to the
that “automatic” language (informal speech used with peers) differs fundamentally hypothetical disabled cognitive systems underlying them. A classic mistake in
from “literate” language (formal speech used in the classroom). These types of neuropsychology is assuming that the intact mind is a mirror reflection of the impaired
speech do not differ in kind, as Levine claims, but differ because the latter is more mind. To use a well-known analogy, if you damage a transistor in a radio and the
demanding than the former-formal speech is more explicit and uses a wider sound becomes fuzzy, it would be a mistake to assume that a normally functioning
vocabulary. That’s why, as Levine notes, some kids can speak fluently to their transistor is a fuzz suppressor. In the same way, it is a mistake to assume that a
friends, but are inarticulate in class. If the subsystems were separate, as he claims, cognitive subsystem must lie behind every observed clinical symptom. Levine relies
one should also see the opposite pattern: kids who speak articulately in the on such logic, however, to validate the subsystems in his theory. According to Levine,
classroom, but cannot speak informally to their parents and peers. a faulty “previewing control” subsystem makes a child impulsive. A faulty “quality
control” subsystem makes a child careless in monitoring how well a task is going.
Seeing Is Believing: How did Levine come to his particular theory of the mind? These behaviors are not proof of different cognitive subsystems; they are symptoms
of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Since A Mind at a Time contains few references to the scientific literature, I
telephoned All Kinds of Minds and asked the associate director of research if there Levine disagrees, and he points to the fact that different children show
was a more research-oriented publication that I might read. She directed me to the different symptoms. If the same cognitive subsystem were impaired, he reasons, one
web site of Schools Attuned, the teacher training program Levine established to would observe the same symptoms, but since kids have different symptoms, different
promote his prescriptions for handling learning-disabled students, which lists the cognitive subsystems must be impaired. But variability in symptoms need not indicate
different disorders. For example, patients with clinical depression may show many or
few of these symptoms: change in appetite, change in sleep pattern, restlessness, categories are useful (or not) to the extent that they mean something. A good
difficulty concentrating, and fatigue. We do not differentiate a different type of category allows us to make inferences about nonobvious properties: for example,
depression for each pattern of symptoms because the underlying causes of categorizing an object as a dog (based on observable features such as the shape of
depression are the same. Similarly, there is no clear evidence for Levine’s the head, the tail) allows the inference of nonobservable features (for instance, it has
distinctions among different types of attention disorders, which he bases on different lungs, it may bite). In the same way, diagnostic categories are based on observable
symptom patterns. features of the child (that is, symptoms) and tell us something about nonobservable
features (such as the neural basis or associated risk factors). Refusing to use
Levine also makes an error in logic when he considers motivation. He diagnostic categories is refusing to benefit from experience to infer nonobservable
believes that all children want to succeed (which is easy to believe), but he takes that features. In fact, we can surmise that Levine must use diagnostic categories to some
to mean that there is no variation in motivation (which is not easy to believe). In The extent.
Myth of Laziness, where he argues that people who appear lazy actually have “output
failure,” Levine says that the subsystems supporting overt behavior are faulty. Levine If a clinician did not generalize from past cases to current patients, he or she
describes a student who had a memory problem that led to poor spelling and writing would have to approach each case as totally novel and as though experience had no
(among other problems), which in turn made his work look careless. Levine’s bearing on the treatment of the case. Thus what does it mean not to use “labels”?
sensitivity is to be applauded-no doubt some students who appear lazy have a Levine does not simply mean that one should not tell the child, “You have disorder
learning disability. But it is just as certain that children vary in their motivation to X.” His comment in A Mind at a Time, “I have seen no convincing scientific evidence
succeed, due to a myriad of factors, including their home environment. It is a logical that [Asperger’s syndrome] exists as a discrete disorder of some kind like a strep
error to assert that because some children’s apparent laziness is due to a learning throat” indicates a belief that a diagnostic category must have a clear boundary of
disability, all children who appear to lack motivation must have a learning disability. symptoms and that the relationship between the cognitive, neural, behavioral, and
genetic factors must be understood before the category is useful. Psychiatry and
Another mistake of interpretation that Levine makes is diminishing the neurology make use of diagnostic categories that initially did not meet these criteria
importance of the interaction of cognitive systems. Most of the systems and or still do not (for example, schizophrenia, depression, Alzheimer’s disease), but
subsystems Levine identifies depend on attention: it is necessary for the successful nevertheless prove useful. By demanding that diagnostic categories either be simple
deployment of memory, problem solving, reasoning, language, and so on. Similarly, a and clear or go unused, Levine throws the diagnostic baby out with the bathwater.
limited working memory capacity-the “workbench of the mind,” where complex
thought occurs-reduces one’s reasoning ability, while problem solving is profoundly Levine also takes an odd position on the use of stimulant medications for
influenced by long-term memory, and so on. Levine acknowledges such interactions kids with ADHD. Their use has been intensively studied, and the best research
here and there, but he never comes close to giving these effects their due in shows that they are more effective than behavioral therapies and
specifying the implications for diagnosis and intervention. that adding behavioral therapy to medication does not seem to work better than
medication alone. It is also important to remember that untreated ADHD is associated
Doubts about Diagnosis and Treatment with increased risks of substance abuse, teen pregnancy, school dropout, and other
Learning disabilities are far from completely understood, but some facts are behavioral problems. These risk factors are significantly reduced by medication. You
relatively clear. Levine’s approach leads him to take a contrarian view of two of them: would not be aware of these facts if you read A Mind at a Time. Levine allows that
diagnostic categories and the effectiveness of medications for ADHD. “some children” “may benefit” from medications, and, elsewhere, that they “can have
a dramatic positive impact on many.” But he adds a list of eight caveats to the use of
Levine goes into some detail on the pitfalls that diagnoses (he calls them medication, ending with this one: “After a thorough evaluation, it is often possible to
“labels”) may elicit-for example, they may be used as an excuse to prescribe avoid or at least delay the use of medication, as other therapeutic possibilities
medication. He argues that kids should not be “labeled,” but overlooks the fact that present themselves.” Trying behavioral therapy first is sensible, and it is of course
appropriate to be cautious in prescribing any medication, but given existing data (and But other cognitive processes are very likely resistant to remediation.
the medical community’s consensus), Levine is simply too sunny in his predictions. Working memory can improve with practice, but the improvement is quite specific to
the practiced task and does not generalize. Levine’s suggestion to exercise it with
Do Levine’s Interventions Work? increasingly long arithmetic problems will yield little benefit. Also, problem solving or
How effective is Schools Attuned, Levine’s teacher training program? As of other higher-level thinking skills are very difficult to practice in any direct sense, in
this writing, the evaluation effort is in its infancy. Several research reports exist, but part because they are so closely tied to background knowledge. There are no
none is peer reviewed, and most offer qualitative, not quantitative, data with small general-purpose tricks to be learned that can improve them as there are with long-
sample sizes. All Kinds of Minds has provided grant money to independent term memory.
researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of Schools Attuned, and that research is Some of Levine’s interventions are designed to help the child’s emotional life,
ongoing. It is worth pausing to dwell on this fact: there are virtually no data with which and those are both simple to implement and likely to be effective. As noted, Levine
to evaluate the efficacy of this program, yet the program has been embraced by two suggests that teachers avoid revealing to the student’s peers that the child has a
states and by the largest city in the United States. Instead of reviewing studies that deficit. Levine also emphasizes explaining to the child why she is having trouble in
evaluate the program, we are left to guess at its likely effect on children. school and emphasizing that the problem is self-contained; the child should not think
As noted, Levine suggests that teachers make accommodations for students- of herself as stupid. I suspect that many sensitive teachers are already following
for example, that the student who is slow in recalling facts be given extra time on an these guidelines. Still, Levine does well to assume that they are not and to
exam. Levine adds another prescription that is not commonplace; he suggests emphasize their importance.
practice on the cognitive subsystem that is impaired. That is, some practice is Other Levine ideas are more novel but still deserve consideration. Students
directed at the faulty subsystem itself in an effort to improve its workings, practice should not take the identification of a learning disability as an excuse for poor
that need not be centered on schoolwork. The child who cannot express himself well performance, Levine argues, but rather as a reason to work all the harder. Further,
verbally, for example, is to tell stories at every opportunity and to play word games Levine suggests that teachers should request “payback” from the student for the
such as Scrabble. This strategy gives rise to two concerns. accommodation. Payback could bring several benefits: it not only represents fairness
First, such intervention depends on an accurate diagnosis. If Levine’s theory to the rest of the class, but also communicates to the student that she is as
of the mind and how it fails is incorrect, some percentage of children will be responsible as anyone else in the class to work hard and that she has talents to draw
diagnosed incorrectly and the remediation misdirected. on. These prescriptions strike me as insightful, powerful, and uncommon. Levine is at
his best when he considers the emotional life of learning-disabled children.
Second, Levine assumes that cognitive processes are open to direct change
through practice. Some of Levine’s subsystems likely don’t exist, but those that do A Final Analysis
are known to be more or less open to practice effects. For example, long-term I began by asking whether Levine’s theory is accurate and whether there is
memory cannot be changed, but students can learn tricks and strategies (such as evidence that his program will help children. The answer to the first question should
using visual images) that will maximize the efficiency of even a poor memory system. be clear; in scientific terms, A Mind at a Time and The Myth of Laziness are riddled
Such strategy instruction is a typical intervention for learning-disabled children; with error. Even worse, there is currently no evidence regarding the effectiveness of
properly applied, it can be effective. Levine offers some good suggestions in this the Schools Attuned program, and the inaccuracy of the theory makes it inevitable
vein, but he also makes suggestions that are known to be wrong. For example, he that some kids are going to be misdiagnosed and some interventions are going to be
argues that memory would be improved if school classes were longer, when in fact misapplied or faulty. Further, Levine does not acknowledge that a sizable fraction of
study that is distributed in time is known to be superior. the kids in special-education classes identified as learning disabled don’t have a
cognitive problem; they have an emotional disturbance or a chaotic home life.
 These problems don’t mean that Schools Attuned will be a disaster. The
program calls for teachers to provide more individual attention, for parents to change
the student’s home environment, or for other professionals to be brought in to work
with the child. Such emotional support and care may well have beneficial effects on
the child’s attitude toward school and subsequent effort. But I suspect that another
program able to recruit the same resources from parents, teachers, and other
professionals but based on solid research evidence would prove more effective.

The obstacles to recruiting these resources are not trivial. Levine is a

clinician, meaning he deals with parents who care enough to bring their child in to be
evaluated and therefore are probably invested enough to take on the extra work with
their children that Levine prescribes. Special-education teachers in schools more
often deal with parents who are not so invested. Still, motivating others may be
Levine’s greatest strength; he writes positively and passionately about the potential in
every child.

Perhaps the greatest testimony to Levine’s passion and power of persuasion

is that decisionmakers in North Carolina, Oklahoma, and New York City have
invested good money and staked the learning of vulnerable children on Schools
Attuned, not with solid evidence of efficacy, but because it sounded good to them-
they didn’t have anything else to go on.

-Daniel T. Willingham is a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia.

Willingham thanks Rick Brigham for help in the preparation of this article.

The unabridged version of this article may be found at www.educationnext.org.

Last updated June 26, 2006 https://www.educationnext.org/mind-over-matter/