The Invisible Population of Students With Learning Disabilities in South Korea

Issue 1: The Debate Regarding the Definition

The LD terminology has a relatively short history in South Korea. Since the LD category was first included in the Special Education Promotion Act (SEPA) in 1994, there has been continuous debate on the definition of students with LD (Choi et al., 2017; A. Kim et al., 2018). The legal definition of LD has been updated twice under special education laws. Initially, a student with LD was simply defined as “a student who has learning difficulties in a specific area such as counting, speaking, reading, or writing” (SEPA, 1994, Article 9, Clause 2). Later, with the replacement of SEPA by the Special Education Act for Individuals with Disabilities and Others (SEAIDO) in 2008, the previous definition of a student with LD was revised to “a student [who] manifests significant difficulties with learning abilities, such as listening, speaking, attention, perception, memory, and problem solving, or in academic achievement areas such as reading, writing, and mathematics due to intrinsic factors” (Article 10). However, several educators have criticized this law, claiming it is still too unclear and that in terms of educational policy and schools, several related terms are inconsistently used (A. Kim et al., 2018).

As a separate topic of LD in South Korea, there has been a rapid increase in the public’s interest regarding dyslexia over recent years. This sudden social attention coincides with the Korea Educational Broadcasting System’s broadcast regarding the issues facing children with dyslexia, “Children Trapped in Letters,” in 2014. As a result of the growing awareness of the increased demands of populations who struggle to read, including students with dyslexia, each municipal and provincial office of education across the nation announced ordinances to support students with dyslexia and reading difficulties (A. Lee & Lee, 2019). Although these city ordinances were established in education offices, the policies were intended to be implemented only as a measure designed to prevent student dropouts rather than as a district-based, schoolwide support system. For example, according to Gyeonggi-do’s Ordinance for Children and Adolescents with Dyslexia and School-Dropouts (2019), “dyslexia and related difficulties” were defined as “symptoms of LD caused by dyslexia, ADHD, and depression.” The purpose of this ordinance was to provide social and economic support (e.g., counseling, training, guardian counseling related to adolescent psychological and mental stability) for children and adolescents suspended from school because of difficulties such as dyslexia. However, this ordinance did not consider the implementation of a schoolwide support system specifically designed to prevent and intervene in academic difficulties due to dyslexia. These struggling learners often require explicit and systematic instruction and accommodation within the school system, in addition to social and mental support.

There is difficulty in distinguishing between dyslexia and LD in Korea, which means the identification of LD is not yet made in a timely manner. The ongoing debate regarding the identification of students with LD follows.

Issue 2: The Debate on Identification

Before the announcement of SEAIDO (2008), there was no consistent method for identifying students with LD, and most of the procedures for the assessment and evaluation of students with LD were conducted by special education teachers (Woo & Kim, 2005). However, with the release of the SEAIDO, the responsibility for the assessment and evaluation of eligibility for special education services was transferred to special education support centers (SESCs) under the regional education support office. With this legal mandate regarding SESCs, active efforts were made to establish nationwide criteria for identifying students with LD. Specifically, since 2010, two different criteria have been used in South Korea: one written by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST, 2010) and the other by the Korean Learning Disabilities Association (KLDA, 2013). In local SESCs, these assessment criteria have been used selectively and without clear guidelines.

The MOEST (2010) guidelines on the identification criteria for students with LD emphasized 3 months of early intervention and referral for at-risk students in general education settings. To assess and identify if a student has a LD, the student must also achieve a score of 75 (±5) or higher on at least two different IQ tests, while the results of academic achievement tests (two types) should be either at least two standard deviations below the chronological average for that age group or two grade levels below their peers. Students who clearly had other disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities) or family and cultural concerns were excluded. Furthermore, in 2013, the KLDA suggested a revised version of the LD identification criteria. The KLDA (2013) guidelines suggested that students be referred based on low achievement (i.e., 16th percentile or one standard deviation below their peers on standardized individual achievement tests) with IQ scores higher than 70.

Since the MOEST guidelines were introduced in 2010, there has been an ongoing debate concerning the identification criteria and lack of support systems to implement the newly required preventive approaches aimed at identifying at-risk students before they fall too far behind their peers. Depending on both the classroom teacher’s point of view and their capacity, students may or may not have been considered at risk. In addition, given the lack of a schoolwide support system, general education teachers did not know when to refer struggling learners who consistently failed in their school tests for a full individual evaluation (W. Kim & Kim, 2016). In addition, some general education teachers were likely to give up on at-risk student referrals, owing to MOEST’s (2010) complicated implementation process in the intervention system (D. Kim et al., 2012). SESCs that were in charge of the assessment of individuals with disabilities did not fully understand the new procedures; in particular, they had difficulty providing guidelines for both the referral of at-risk students (Jung & Kang, 2015) and for distinguishing between slow learners, under-achievers, and students with LD (Y.-S. Kim, 2012).

Issue 3: The Public’s Limited Understanding

Despite several legislative attempts to increase the public’s awareness of and improve attitudes toward individuals with disabilities (e.g., the 2019 Special Education Operation Plan and the Fifth Five-Year Development Plan for Persons with Disabilities), being labeled as having a disability is still viewed negatively in South Korea. In K. Lee’s (2016) survey and social media analysis, more than 60% of respondents said that there was still pervasive discrimination toward people with disabilities. In particular, parents of children with disabilities said that their children experienced school violence and discrimination regarding educational opportunities (K. Kim & Kim, 2015). Thus, it is not unlikely that parents would choose to hide their children’s disabilities unless appropriate services were provided for students with LD.

Furthermore, studies have shown that high school and college students have a limited understanding of LD and do not know how to interact with their peers with LD (Cho et al., 2014; O. Lee & Shin, 2019; W. R. Lee, 2005). In O. Lee and Shin’s (2019) study, most high school respondents said they knew about or had heard the term dyslexia but did not know about LD or other subcategories of LD (e.g., LD in mathematics or writing). This dichotomous familiarity with LD terminology is a problem. It is likely that the general population either has misconceptions of LD or thinks that dyslexia is unrelated to or not a subcategory of LD. Teachers also demonstrated somewhat negative and low perceptions of students with LD in comparison to students with learning difficulties. They reported having difficulty evaluating and teaching students with LD (Byon & Park, 2013). With this pervasive lack of understanding of and negative attitudes toward people with LD, the current declining trend of recognizing LD will continue to manifest in South Korea.

Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Directions

Despite improvements in special education laws in South Korea, there is still a lack of understanding of LD, as well as the continuous debate regarding the definition and identification criteria of students with LD. This has led to a rapidly declining identification of students with LD. There are some potential pathways to address this declining trend, however.

To assess and educate students with LD, all school personnel, including administrators, general education teachers, and special education teachers, should cooperate in extending efforts to support struggling learners. Thurlow et al. (2019) emphasized the power of shared beliefs and support systems for students in inclusive settings. By sharing the responsibility for struggling learners and providing a schoolwide support system, all students, including those with LD, would receive more opportunities to learn. Furthermore, we must also increase the availability of services and well-trained personnel in SESCs, as these institutions presently suffer from a shortage of competent special education employees. This requirement is essential because these centers play a vital role in the provision of special education services and the diagnosis and identification of students with LD.

It is important to establish persistent legislative efforts for students with LD. Several Korean special education laws have been enacted since 1977, each of which has envisioned the rights of people with disabilities. Despite the establishment of the recent city regulations on supporting child and adolescent students with dyslexia, local ordinances provide inconsistent support for these students. Some offer support programs for students with LD, whereas others lack data-based intervention plans and systems. To address this issue, it is vital that government officials and educational leaders first understand the nature of LD (Gartland & Strosnider, 2018), and that efforts should be made to execute policies and turn them into action plans.

Finally, another urgently needed task is to promote disability awareness among the public and improve attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. K. Lee (2016) reported that, in South Korea, the public still holds negative views about people with disabilities. Everyone needs to enhance their understanding of each individual’s strengths and limitations, including people with disabilities. School teachers, parents, and individuals should collaborate to create an inclusive society that is accessible to everyone.