A Historical and Cross-National Study of Legal, Academic, and Practitioner Discourses in Germany, the USA, and Italy (1960 to 1980)

• In Event: Curriculum for Equity and Inclusion: Integrating Socio-Emotional, Digital, and Social Perspectives in Public Education

Proposal

Despite being “the most frequently identified class of disabilities among students in public schools” (Lyon et al, 2001, 259) the concept of learning disability “remains among the most problematic classifications because of the vagaries and antagonisms surrounding definition” (Kavale & Forness, 2000, 239). The problematic nature of learning disability has been summarized by Lyon et al. (2001, 259) as following: “many disagree about the definition and classification of LD; the diagnostic criteria and assessment practices used in the identification process; the content, intensity, and duration of instructional practices employed”. The “catch-all” (Kavale, Spaulding & Beam 2009, 52) nature of learning disability can be traced back to the year of its first emergence, 1962, when Samuel Kirk attempted to define learning disability as “a retardation, disorder, or delayed development in one or more of the processes of speech, language, reading, spelling, writing, or arithmetic resulting from a possible cerebral dysfunction and not from mental retardation, sensory deprivation, or cultural or instructional factors” (Kirk, 1962, 263). The ambiguous nature of learning disability led some scholars to the conclusion that “learning disability is just a fancy term for low achievement” (Fuchs et al. 2002). If these insights are taken seriously, learning disability may be a vague concept; however, it is highly prevalent, often referenced, and – due to its relatedness to academic low achievement – relevant for almost all educational systems. When approaching learning disability from a comparative standpoint it can be observed that (working) definitions, criteria, and diagnostic procedures are not just debated between different professional groups within a national context (i.e. medical doctors, special needs researchers, educational psychologists) but that differences also emerge between different national contexts. Opp (1992, 352) has therefore concluded for the comparison between Germany and the USA that “[d]espite the literal translation of the term and despite the significant historic German-European contributions to the American concept of learning disabilities, Lernbehinderung has little in common with the American concept of learning disability”.
The conundrum surrounding different national as well as professional understandings of learning disability will be addressed by conducting a historical (1960 to 1980) comparison of three countries (Germany, USA, and Italy) as well as three different focal points (school-administrative/legal, academic, and practitioner level). This paper tries to answer two different research questions:
1) How has learning disability in terms of definitions, criteria, and identification mechanisms been understood in the different national contexts as well as in the different focal points?
2) Which similarities and differences can be drawn between states as well as focal points?
The rationale for the country selection has been that the USA can be considered a global powerhouse regarding research on learning disability whereas Germany – with its historically grown special school system (cf. Neuhaus & Vogt 2025) – and Italy – with its own form of psychological diagnostic (cf. Debe et al. 2024) as well as a strong push for inclusion in 1977 – can serve as instructive comparisons. The timeframe has been selected as the 1960s mark the start for concept of learning disability as well as national manifestations thereof; prior to 1960, most educational systems operated with highly specific and nationally-oriented concepts such as, for the case of Germany, Hilfsschulbedürftigkeit (literally: in need of the special school) – a concept shaped during the Third Reich featuring a tremendous degree of eugenic thinking (cf. Debe et al. 2024; Hänsel 2019; Neuhaus & Vogt 2025). Lastly, the different focal points (school administrative, academic, practitioner) have been chosen as it can suspected that they cover, or at least approximate, the different relevant levels of education.
In terms of source material, the different focal points require different kinds of sources. For the school-administrative/ legal level the different national laws, decrees, and equivalents (i.e. for Germany the Kultusministerkonferenz, short KMK-recommendations) falling into the period under investigation have been selected; for the academic discourse, handbook entries/chapters and national equivalents (i.e. for Italy, study books) – referencing and reproducing highly canonized knowledge – have been selected. The practitioner level has been attempted to be approximated by accumulating articles from different teacher-practitioner magazines (~30 for each country). The sources have been screened on two content-related bases: Firstly, they cover aspects of learning disability and/or the identification thereof as well as secondly, they fall into the period under investigation.
The source material has been analyzed employing a content-analytical approach (cf. Mayring 2009) and has been conducted with the help of MAXQDA software. By firstly following a shared coding system/ code book – which was then later extended to also depict national idiosyncrasies –, the analysis within national context (i.e. political, academic, and practitioner level in Italy) as well as across focal points (i.e. academic knowledge in USA, Italy, and Germany) has been facilitated; thereby contributing to the different research questions.
Regarding preliminary results it can be stated that the vagueness of learning disability permeates all three national contexts and that legal guidelines/ laws are barely capable of describing or defining the phenomenon accordingly. Instead, different professions – i.e. special needs teachers (Germany), educational psychologists (USA), or a special branch of psychiatrists (Italy) – are appointed to assess and ultimately categorize the children in question. Depending on the appointed professionals, the academic as well as practitioner discourse changes significantly as different degrees of proximity can be suspected between regular school teachers and the appointed professionals.
This contribution aims at the interrogation and re-examination of a central reference point within educational systems, namely the question of who is considered to be too deviant to participate. And the results of the study hint at the fact that – again, in accordance with the conference theme –, despite similarities on the surface level, we do live in a divided world. However, the division not just manifests itself between different countries but also between different inner-national entities.

Authors

• Michaela Vogt, Bielefeld University

• Till Neuhaus

• Bhumika Bandodker, Bielefeld University

• Simonetta Polenghi, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Milan

• Anna Debè

• Özge Erşan, University of Illinois at Chicago

• Federico Waitoller