Abstract
Learning disabilities (LD) has been a controversial concept since its inception in the 1960s in the United States, when Samuel Kirk and Barbara Bateman (1962) published the first paper about the construct. By the time that LD was officially included as a category of special education under the landmark 1975 U.S. special education law, PL 94–142, it had spawned a journal and hundreds of articles. However, that was only the beginning. The number of students identified as having LD increased from virtually zero to greater than 5% of the school–age population by the end of the century, a level of growth that has engendered much concern about the category (Hallahan, Lloyd, Kauffman, Weiss, & Martinez, 2005).
Although means for identifying students who qualify for special education because of LD have varied over the years (see, e.g., the formula proposed in regulations by the U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1976), the construct of LD has been consistent. That construct is that there are some students who have difficulty acquiring academic competence, even though they do not have other disabilities such as sensory impairments, mental retardation, or emotional and behavioral disorders. In the United States, the special education category of Specific Learning Disability has been a means of providing legal protection for those students, ensuring that they have access to special education services.
The emergence of LD in the United States resulted in many sociopolitical, psychological, and educational controversies (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; Kavale & Forness, 1995). There were concerns about the means of identifying individuals as having disabilities (e.g., Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Shinn, & McCue, 1982), ethnic bias in identification (Tucker, 1980), comorbidity and differentiation from other disorders such as Emotional and Behavioral Disorders and Attention Deficit–Hyperactivity Disorder (e.g., Kavale & Forness, 1998), and other issues.
Despite these concerns, as LD developed in the United States, similar constructs emerged in other countries. Although there is surely some measure of imitation among countries in how they address LD, examining the construct across various sociocultural boundaries should help promote a broader understanding of LD. That is, gaining an understanding of the way that LD are addressed in other countries should help scholars from many places to identify the core concepts that undergird our understanding.
Does LD emerge in similar ways in different societies where different historical, linguistic, sociopolitical, and psychological perspectives affect education? To examine the international understanding of LD and in hopes of identifying similarities and differences in international views of LD, we invited scholars from diverse parts of the world to describe the perspectives in their countries.
Seven articles introduce the condition of LD in eight different countries: Botswana, Guatemala, Israel, Norway, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, and Taiwan. As the authors of these articles note, from these descriptions of the status of LD, common factors emerge. We think it is helpful to clarify the confusion at this time and hope to provide guidance for the parts of world where LD is still neglected.
We asked the authors to discuss an array of issues. Chief among these were questions about (1) how individuals with the kinds of difficulties usually subsumed under LD (e.g., dyslexia) are recognized, served, and studied; (2) what factors have affected the recognition of LD and services to children and youth with these disorders; and (3) the current status of research on the nature and assessment of LD and methods for intervention.
We are sincerely grateful to our outstanding colleagues who had to write in English and endure our brutal schedule (and editing) for this special issue. We believe that this unique assembly of descriptions of LD from around the world offers important perspectives for people concerned about LD everywhere. Our hope is that the contributions of our colleagues who wrote the original articles and commentaries on the articles will help clarify the construct of LD and further efforts everywhere to ensure that children can benefit from education.