Knowing Better and then Doing Better: Multinational Perspectives on the Learning Disability of America’s New Specific Learning Disabilities Evaluation Standards

Specific learning disability (SLD) is defined in the US Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) as, “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations” (2004). Organizations outside of the United States frequently cite this definition, and the term is also referenced in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2022). Despite clear policy commitments in the US and in countries around the world for the inclusive education of students with SLD (IDEIA, 2004; UNESCO, 1994, United Nations, 2006), persistently low student achievement data indicate that little progress has been made toward meeting the instructional needs of students with SLD (Wagner et al., 2006). Too many children are not properly evaluated or, when evaluated, show little response to the resulting interventions. Too many evaluations provide little guidance for educators to address the student’s difficulties (King, et al., 2023; Uman~a, et al., 2020). Students with SLD represent 32% of the K-12 student disability population (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). The most current NAEP data indicates that, compared to students without disabilities, students with disabilities are profoundly behind their peers without disabilities. On average there was a gap of 38.5% between students with disabilities and students without disabilities who scored below basic in 4th and 8th grade reading. For mathematics, 36% more students with disabilities scored below basic in 4th and 8th grades compared to students without disabilities Given these dismal data, an interdisciplinary team of researchers and practitioners partnered with the Learning Disability Association of America to develop new SLD Evaluation Principles and Standards (van Ingen et al., 2023). Current educational contexts both in the US and internationally demand that evaluations not only identify causes of learning differences and difficulties but also identify potential solutions. We move away from a process where decisions are based on eligibility or categorizing students into tiers with one-size-fits-all intervention programs toward a movement where an individual’s specific learning and social-emotional needs are truly addressed. The purpose of these new, interdisciplinary Principles and Standards is to provide a guide for best practices in the evaluation and identification of SLD. The standards outline a process professionals can use to develop a comprehensive evaluation and written report that describe: the nature of the specific learning disability; the area and levels of impairment; subject areas and personal areas of strengths; cultural and linguistic diversity of the student; and specific considerations for practitioners to develop individualized interventions designed to meet the unique academic, linguistic, social, emotional, and behavioral needs of the student. These standards emphasize that a truly comprehensive evaluation of SLD requires an interdisciplinary team working in collaboration to understand the student’s individual strengths and needs (e.g., psychologists, parents, the student themselves, teachers, speech and language pathologists, school counselors, and health providers). We argue for a process of bidirectional and iterative communication in which information is gathered about developmental, academic, social, cultural and language factors, health, and behavioral/emotional functioning from parents/caregivers, teachers, and the student to inform the assessment and evaluation process. Teachers contribute formative and progress monitoring data that provide insight into what and how the child is learning. Their information informs the selection of standardized assessments of academic, cognitive, and linguistic functioning. Importantly, the teacher’s data provide the context in which the information obtained from standardized assessments is interpreted, thereby connecting the evaluation to the student’s educational milieu. Tests do not diagnose disorders or identify SLD; clinicians make the diagnoses. Without interdisciplinary collaboration and understanding of the student’s educational context, the likelihood of errors is significant. After presenting an overview of the Principles and Standards, experts from 5 countries (Brazil, China, Egypt, Germany, Zambia) provide a context-specific analysis of the possibilities and challenges of using/adapting these standards in each country. Bringing these multinational perspectives together, we discuss the ways in which we can learn from country-specific variations in learning disability evaluation practices, as well as possibilities for future collaborative shared research agendas. Together, we can learn more and do better for students around the globe who have learning differences and difficulties. References American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004) King, S., Ritchie, K. C., McGonnell, M., & Green, J. R. (2023). Don't do more do different: A qualitative description of teachers' perceptions of and experiences with the psychoeducational assessment process. Psychology in the Schools. 1– 19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22917 National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Uman~a, I., Khosraviyani, A., & Castro-Villarreal, F. (2020). Teachers’ preferences and perceptions of the psychological report: A systematic review. Psychology in the Schools, 57(4), 502-521. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. http://www.refworld.org/docid/4680cd212.html UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris, UNESCO/Ministry of Education, Spain. (ED-34/WS/18.) van Ingen Lauer, S., Allsopp, D., McHale-Small, M., Tridas, E., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Scott, K., & Kane, C. (2023). The Learning Disability Association of America’s Specific Learning Disability Evaluation Principles and Standards. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(2). doi.org/10.18666/ldmj-2023-v28-i2-12226 Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., and Levine, P. (2006). The Academic Achievement and Functional Performance of Youth With Disabilities. A Report From the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). (NCSER 2006-3000). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.