Importance

Conflicting viewpoints on what constitutes an LD has obviously led to trouble for some students who feel like they haven’t gotten the help they need due to a lack of recognition of their struggles. Tackling the question “What is a learning disability?” in order to arrive at a classification method applicable on a broader academic level, would lead to clarity as to who should receive assistance and of what sort on all levels from individual schools up to government aid. The general importance of learning for individuals and society is clear, and since not every individual learns the same way or at the same rate as their peers, this can lead to significant discrepancies in life outcomes. Accounting for these discrepancies and giving assistance seems to be a vital part of a successful education system.

To help motivate why the definition of learning disabilities deserves philosophical attention, it’s useful to highlight how influential and apparently authoritative views don’t agree on what to include and why. For example, according to the Learning Disabilities Association, learning disabilities are neurologically based processing problems (LDAA, 2020). This refers to the fact that there is a problem or error in the central and peripheral nervous system that impacts an individual's ability to learn (World Health Organization, 2016). Most individuals are diagnosed with a specific learning disability, such as dyslexia or dyscalculia (LDAA, 2020). The general term learning disability according to the LDA is then an umbrella term that covers up to seven different specific learning disabilities: dyscalculia, dysgraphia, dyslexia, oral/ written language disorder and specific reading comprehension deficit, and non-verbal learning disabilities (LDAA, 2020).

Alternatively, according to the DSM-5, the authoritative reference for psychiatrists, the symptoms of a learning disability are “persistent difficulties in reading, writing, arithmetic, or mathematical reasoning skills during formal years of schooling. Symptoms may include inaccurate or slow and effortful reading, poor written expression that lacks clarity, difficulties remembering number facts, or inaccurate mathematical reasoning.” (APA, 2013). This does not require a basis in the nervous system, in contrast to the LDA definition. Another controversial issue is how the DSM-5 excludes ADD and ADHD in its definition of a learning disability (APA, 2013).

Partly as a compromising response, the National Center for Learning Disabilities does not use the term “learning disability”, but instead uses “learning and attention issues” (NCLD, 2019). They are then able to include ADHD and Dyspraxia when discussing these learning issues, which are not formally considered disabilities according to the DSM-5. Many doctors and medical professionals consider ADD/ADHD a learning disability, regardless of the DSM-5 definition (NCLD, 2019).

Finally, a slightly different approach to learning disabilities is to classify them “as a form of ‘unexpected’ underachievement” (Fletcher et al., 2005). This type of definition comes with its own set of challenges such as, determining what should be considered unexpected underachievement and excluding it from the rest. The concept of ‘unexpected’ underachievement made its way into US federal statutes in 1975, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 was based on this definition as well (Fletcher et al., 2005).

Students today find themselves under a high level of pressure to perform well in school, and an undiagnosed or unacknowledged LD can be a major obstacle to success. A majority of parents, of course, strive to ensure that their children receive a high-quality education, as having a high school and college education enable their children to start careers that they wouldn’t otherwise be options. As a result, it is more common than ever for young adults to be encouraged to attend college and obtain a degree. Research on learning disabilities has led to developments in our understanding of how some forms of LD progress, but it has also brought to light inconsistencies in diagnoses and the discrepancies that remain between the principle of ensuring every student has a chance to have a quality education and what actually happens for some students with LDs .

Research into the causes and effects of learning disabilities has driven an ongoing evolution into our understanding of what they are, how they develop, and what can be done to help. Research in the early 1970s drew connections between hyperactivity and learning disabilities in adolescents that are genetically predisposed to early symptoms of schizophrenia (Cott, 1977). Years later, evidence emerged that suggests the higher rate of learning disabilities in males could be associated with mutations in X-linked genes (Emly, 1993). In the 1990s, people began to move away from thinking of learning disabilities as just medical conditions, psychiatric disorders, or developmental disorders, and started adopting the notion that learning disabilities encompass social justice, civil rights, discrimination etc. issues as well (Emly, 1993). One consistent point of agreement since the 1970s has been that “learning disabilities are associated with minimal brain dysfunction” in children of near or above-average intelligence, and they should therefore be differentiated from cases of “mental retardation or of severe emotional disturbance” (Cott, 1977). Minimal brain dysfunction refers to children that fall within the range of average intelligence and suffer from behavioral disabilities “associated with deviations of function of the central nervous system” (Cott, 1977).

Another important aspect of learning disabilities concerns the perspectives and experiences of racial or ethnic minority groups, who represent a disproportionately large percentage of the U.S. population of students that are identified as having learning disabilities (Mcdermott et al. , 2006; Shifrer et al., 2011). This is concerning for the educational system because it suggests that students are being labeled with learning disabilities based on characteristics that are irrelevant to their cognitive processes . A study in 1993 showed that in relation to White students, Alaska Native students were 1.8 times more likely to be identified as having some kind of learning or attention issue, Black students are shown to be increasingly identified over white students, and Asian students are actually less likely to be identified. It is not uncommon to find students with limited English proficiency placed in special education classrooms, and this misidentification of learning disabilities could be an indication of the rejection of minority cultures (Shifrer et al., 2011). This disproportionality leads to the over-identification of LD when it may not necessarily be the prevailing cause for stunted academic performance, and also the under- identification of LD even though it may be a factor.

Identifying or being diagnosed with a learning disability can also have important positive or negatives on the experiences and personal lives. In a study observing students with learning disabilities enrolled in a public 4-year university, it was found that their experiences with being labeled in terms of their disability were positive “when it made sense out of their academic struggles and involved getting help” (Barga, 1996). Students viewed being labeled with a learning disability negatively when they received undue differential treatment in a more public setting, or when they were excluded from their peer groups (Barga, 1996). Stigmatization and gatekeeping, a term coined during Barga’s study, were other obstacles that students with learning disabilities faced throughout their academic careers. Gatekeeping is characterized as maintaining quality control of a program or department usually by denying access to students with learning disabilities; this study found a positive correlation between gatekeeping and stigmatization (Barga, 1996). This means that students who were labelled as having some sort of LD were excluded from receiving certain opportunities, even if their disability would not have necessarily impacted their performance.

Since there is broad agreement that someone with a learning disability must have persistent difficulty learning, we will use this basic idea as our starting point for mapping out a set of important issues for our root question. This suggests a core set of questions valuable to mapping out the problem: what is learning in the first place? Does it matter why someone has a persistent difficulty learning? Is it even good to identify people as having learning disabilities? Further mapping is desirable here, but the current discussion can be carved up into the following questions.

How do we identify a learning disability in a student?

According to a National Academy of Sciences article, the majority of learning disability diagnoses are made in an academic or clinical setting. The health records of the child as well as reports from schoolteachers are utilized in the diagnosis process (The National Academy of Sciences, 2015). However, it is important to consider how individuals have different learning styles. Assessing the learning capability of a student solely in a traditional school setting prevents the diagnostician from observing the child in various learning environments.

In the United States, there has been a lack of consensus about the definition of learning disability as well as a lack of common diagnostic methods. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) describes a learning disability as a psychological condition that impacts an individual’s ability to receive and process new information. However, this Federal act does not lay out the diagnostic methods that should be used throughout the country. A contributing factor in how each state utilizes a unique way to identify individuals with this condition (Maki, Floyd & Roberson, 2015). Due to the differing testing methods being executed in each part of the country, the country does not have an established understanding of what a learning disability entails. Although IDEA defines a learning disability as a psychological condition, certain states describe a learning disability also being a neurological and language disorder (Maki, Floyd & Roberson, 2015). The lack of a common understanding of learning disability has been an obstacle in defining what this condition entails.

Schools and clinicians throughout the United States are faced with making a difficult decision regarding which population fits into the protected category of “students with disabilities” . Students who are diagnosed with a learning disability are protected under certain laws and thusly receive accommodations that address and ease their learning challenges. However, students who have ADHD are not considered as having a learning disability according to the IDEA and DSM-5 (“Types of Learning Disabilities,” 2020), and therefore are not inherently afforded certain means of assistance. These students may be faced with circumstances that further impede their learning and development and have difficulties in dealing with their disorder/ disabilities on their own, outside of the education system. Therefore, it may be advantageous for students who have learning difficulties (such as ADHD) to receive the same accommodations as those with a DSM-5 learning disability (National Institute of Mental Health, 2003). This aspect of the discussion has been challenging because the category of “learning disability” is exclusive and has implications about the organization of school programs. Although there is a degree of agency on the school’s part, the lack of overarching, official rules don’t guarantee those with ADD and ADHD assistance they may need. Students must therefore rely on the individual component of the educational system they find themselves in.

Is it desirable to assign the label of “learning disability” to a student?

Does a clinical diagnosis help or hurt? What about self-identifying as having a learning disability even without a clinical diagnosis? One of the most important questions concerning learning disabilities is then whether or not a clinical diagnosis will influence a person’s quality of life (Bradley, 2002). The previous sections looked to understand how attempts at answering the original question are difficult and have real life implications for policy, research, and societal change; however, how does a clinical diagnosis of an individual with a learning disability impact that person?

Some argue that how we view and understand learning disabilities has an impact on how we act about them. Gallaudet University, for example, was the first deaf university and is located in Washington, D.C. Students there are taught they do not have hearing loss, but deaf gain (Legg, 2012). Although having a disability is often seen as a negative, many view their disability as a positive, as it has led them to excel at other things. The DSM-5 states that you must be behind your peers academically in order to have a learning disability, but this does not always apply to every person with a learning disability (APA, 2013). Some students are well ahead of their peers. But because of the definition the DSM-5 gives, it is implied that people with learning disabilities always do poorly in school (APA, 2013). This can lead to the creation of a perception in society that considers people with learning disabilities as lacking intelligence.

People’s perceptions that individuals with disabilities are different from the rest of the community can motivate people to prefer not to label themselves or their loved ones as having a disability, although many others respond through advocacy or open pride (Ford & Thompson, 2017). A majority of people with learning disabilities can address them with additional tools and guidance in order to learn more effectively (“Types of Learning Disabilities,” 2020). However, simply labeling their condition as a disability may also expose them to stigmatization from their own family members and the wider society. For example, some parents have refused to tell others that their child has a learning disability and reported feeling disappointed and ashamed of their own children who have this condition (Ford & Thompson, 2017). The “learning disability” label can thus cause children harm by placing these individuals in a segregated category that causes them to be perceived differently and to face discrimination (Knapp, 2019).

Clinical diagnosis has also been shown to widely impact a child in terms of attending different classes, more visits to the doctor, and even being a candidate for being stereotyped (May and Stone, 2010). Research reveals that stereotypes on LD students were self-imposed in addition to stereotypes imposed by non-LD students. LD students viewed learning and intelligence as a fixed trait while non-LD students correlated LD students as having “low ability” (May and Stone, 2010). A meta-analysis of educational intervention for students with learning disabilities found that treatment is more effective in certain academic domains than others, not all treatments are equally effective, the way in which learning disabilities are defined impacts outcome, and that methodological variations influence treatment results (Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998). Implementing different teaching methods such as, combining direct instruction with strategy instruction models (e.g. drill-repetition-practice, segmentation of information, small interactive groups) have been effective interventions that increase learning in students with LD (Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998).

Responding to concerns about effects on students, Kyle Redford raises the question, “should we still use the language of disability to sort, stigmatize, and pathologize the condition in school?” Redford writes in this context as an elementary school educator with more than 30 years of experience, an advisor and editor to the Yale Center for Dyslexia, and a member of the NCLD advisory council who has written extensively on the challenges that may arise when teaching dyslexic students based on her own, as well other educators', experiences. The notion exists that individuals diagnosed with what are commonly seen as disabilities, such as dyslexia, actually possess certain unique strengths (Petrova, n.d.). Because of this, it has been posited that the label “disability” be dropped, and replaced with a term that doesn't seem to imply some deficiency. Redford says, “All it does is make them think they’re unintelligent and generate personal anxiety about their ability to learn” (Redford, 2017). The term leads to unwarranted stigmatization. She argues that it is important to recognize that dyslexia is not an intellectual disability wherein an afflicted student is handicapped in their reasoning abilities, but is instead a mechanical disability that affects the intake of information and not what is done with the information. This, to Redford, means that these students are just as capable as their counterparts in arriving at the conclusions of lessons and in meeting certain aims of education, so long as the method of teaching is adapted to be conducive to their development.

The other side of this debate argues that no matter what “unique strengths” an individual with LD may have that are applicable to the workforce, creative pursuits, or other aspects of life outside of the education system, it still remains that these strengths are rarely applicable withing the education system. These students may be able to leave the system and flourish, but while they are still students, they will face struggles that their counterparts may not. As previously discussed, the diagnosis of an LD can afford students certain protections and assistance. However, in taking away the label of “disability”, the hard-fought victories to afford this protection and assistance will lose significant meaning (Redford, 2017).

Some scholars, such as Carol Christensen, claim more radically that engaging in discussion around this question is premature until there is agreement on a definition of what a learning disability is. (Christensen 1992).

Is a learning disability intrinsic or environmental?

Another portion of the scholarly debate in the field of learning disabilities concerns itself with the scaling problem (Denton et al. 2003). This is concisely summarized as how the results of LD research can be scaled to programs, activities, schools, organizations, and policy that will result in direct impacts. Research settings are uniquely different from real-life practical scenarios and that their results may not be generalizable (Vellutino et al. 2003). One factor to consider in these challenges is how the nature of learning disabilities may derive from causes intrinsic to an individual’s neurology, environmental causes, or a conjunction of these two.

As we noted above, the LDAA defines a learning disability as a neurological condition (LDAA, 2020). This leads one to believe that learning disabilities are able to be understood in terms of a deficiency of brain function. Is this definition the right way of thinking about what a learning disability is, or should it include other social factors, such as the environment (e.g., upbringing of the student)? One such answer is offered through functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies. Todd Richards, a professor from the University of Washington, in 2001 had individuals with a clinical diagnosis of LD placed in a fMRI machine and had them complete a variety of tasks. Richards main takeaway reinforced the notion that learning disabilities are a “brain-based disorder and that serial imaging studies can be used to study the effect of treatment on functional brain activity” (Richards, 2001). Numerous studies implementing the same technology have offered similar conclusions (Beneventi et al. 2010; Kaufmann et al. 2010; Thomas et al. 2006).

However, some researchers have raised concern with this purely neurological focus as it begins to discredit how other factors might play a role in understanding how a learning disability is defined and treated (Heiman and Precel, 2003). For example, different learning strategies and more nurturing environments might enable students with LD to overcome learning deficits (Heiman and Precel, 2003). These debates are ongoing, and no consensus is likely to come soon. However, it is important that these questions are being asked so that more attention can be brought to the problems that plague the original question of “What is a learning disability?”.