Why some children with learning difficulties get identified – and others don’t
Two children sit in different schools. Both struggle to read. Both have similar low scores on national tests. But while one gets a diagnosis of specific learning difficulties and a package of support, the other is left to fall behind.
My colleagues and I have carried out new research analysing the records of around 540,000 primary school children across England. It reveals a troubling picture. Whether a child gets identified with specific learning difficulties – an umbrella term for conditions involving difficulties with reading and mathematics – depends not just on how they perform academically, but on the school they go to, their gender, their family’s income, their first language, and even the average ability of their classmates.
Fewer than 2% of pupils in England are identified as having a specific learning difficulty. That figure sits well below international estimates suggesting that between 5% and 10% of children are affected. Some researchers put the true prevalence of reading difficulties as high as one in five. Clearly, in England, a large number of children are not getting the support they need.
Our study found that where a child goes to school plays a role in whether they get identified or not. We observed that children in high-achieving schools were actually more likely to be identified, even with the same test scores as peers elsewhere who weren’t identified. Findings suggest that when a child falls behind in a school where most pupils do well, they get noticed. In schools where low attainment is more common, the same child simply blends in. Same academic struggles, different school, different outcome.
Children being missed
One of the most striking findings concerns gender. After accounting for academic scores, boys were twice as likely as girls to be identified with specific learning difficulties. This isn’t simply because boys struggle more. It likely reflects how difficulties present differently by gender. Boys who struggle often act out while girls are more likely to struggle quietly with anxiety and inattention, which are far less visible in a classroom setting. Our findings suggest that a child who is silently struggling may go unnoticed and miss out on the support they need.
Children who speak a language other than English at home, around one in five pupils in England today, face the starkest disparity. Accounting for their actual test scores, these pupils were dramatically less likely to be identified with specific learning difficulties.
This is because assessment tools are largely designed for monolingual English speakers. When a child struggles to read, it can be easy for teachers to attribute the difficulty to language acquisition rather than a potential learning difficulty. But the two can coexist. Missing that distinction means missing a child.
Children from more deprived neighbourhoods were also less likely to be identified. In England, the most common route to a specific learning difficulty diagnosis such as dyslexia involves private assessment, a process that can cost hundreds of pounds. Affluent families can navigate and afford this – many others cannot.
What needs to change
England’s special educational needs and disabilities code of practice acknowledges specific learning difficulties, but offers no clear guidelines for how to identify pupils. The result is a system where practice varies enormously by school. That variability is not random. It follows fault lines of gender, language and poverty.
The most urgent priority is a national framework that sets out clearly what specific learning difficulties are and how schools should identify them. This was not addressed in the government’s recent policy paper on schools, which covered special educational needs provision. Alongside that, teachers need better training to recognise their own biases in referral. But training alone is not enough – identification should not be left to teacher judgement.
Standardised, objective reading and maths screening tools, applied consistently to all children, are the most reliable way to ensure every child who needs support is identified early, regardless of how they behave in class. Until then, which children get help will continue to depend far too much on luck.
Johny Daniel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.