Reply to the Comments on ‘Specific Learning Disability: Ten Challenges and Ten Recommendations in Current Indian Context’

Dear Commentators,

In this article, we purposefully chose to take a reality-based outlook on SLD in the current Indian context rather than an idealistic one with minimal real-world implications. Any researcher examining SLD must carefully distinguish between cross-linguistic variation in presentation and the universal nature of the underlying neurocognitive deficits. While it is well-recognized that the phenotypic expression of SLD can be influenced by the orthographic transparency of a given language, these surface-level differences should not be misconstrued as justification for discarding uniform diagnostic criteria. Substantial evidence from cognitive neuroscience and cross-cultural studies confirms that core deficits in phonological processing, working memory, and automaticity are consistently observed across languages. ¹ Diagnostic systems like the DSM-5 and ICD-11 rightly classify SLDs as neurodevelopmental disorders with a biological and cognitive basis, rather than as artifacts of language-specific instructional practices. Moreover, while examining the relationship between grapheme-phoneme consistency and SLD expression can yield valuable insights into how symptoms present across languages, attempting to anchor epidemiological estimates solely on this linguistic dimension would be methodologically unsound and practically unfeasible.

This article was specific to challenges and recommendations regarding SLD and not to review the role of educational psychologists or research done by NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training), or SCERT (State Councils of Educational Research and Training). The commentators have highlighted the role of educational psychologists, citing the context of a developed nation like the United States, even where it was found that most school psychologists followed different frameworks of SLD with significant psychometric limitations. ² This again highlights the need for standardization of the approach towards SLD across various educational boards.

While the theoretical proposition of focusing on everyone’s abilities may sound progressive and inclusive, it overlooks the core principle of disability legislation, which is to ensure equity, not uniformity. The commenter’s perspective, though well-meaning, reflects a limited understanding of the legal framework of disability and policy mandates that require a rights-based, not ability-based, approach. Standardized frameworks for disability identification and support are not intended to treat everyone identically, but rather to uphold the principle of substantive equality, ensuring that those with disabilities are not left behind. ³ Importantly, another often-overlooked population is individuals with borderline intellectual functioning. Despite being at heightened risk for poor educational, social, and mental health outcomes, they fall outside formal disability classifications and thus receive little to no systemic support or legal recognition. This vulnerable group requires urgent policy attention and inclusion within a protective framework to prevent marginalization. Dimensional approaches to intelligence will have practical challenges, especially in the context of disability, where we require categorical cut-offs to implement welfare measures.

It seems there may be some misunderstandings regarding the Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS). The RTI helps differentiate between true learning disorders and instructional deficits by examining how students respond to scientifically validated teaching methods. The MTSS is a broader, more comprehensive framework that includes RTI but also incorporates social-emotional, behavioral, and mental health support. ⁴ Both RTI and MTSS frameworks are used for early identification, prevention, and support within general and special education settings. There are no specific interventions for SLD. Further, treating RTI/MTSS as sacrosanct is reductive and undermines the complexity of neurodevelopmental disorders. Even after decades of MTSS implementation in high-resource, developed country settings, RTI and MTSS face significant implementation bottlenecks, including inconsistencies in fidelity, lack of consensus on criteria, and delays in intervention. ⁵ In low-resource and multilingual contexts, the uniform imposition of RTI and MTSS is not just impractical; it is potentially harmful. Until such evidence emerges from Indian settings, policy endorsement of RTI and MTSS must be approached with caution and scientific integrity.

While we remain critical of uncontextualized adoption of RTI and MTSS, we firmly uphold that identification and intervention for learning and mental health challenges must be embedded within educational institutions, reducing reliance on the health system. Leaving mental healthcare solely in the hands of mental health professionals is not only unrealistic, it is systemically dangerous. In a country like India, where mental health resources are limited and unevenly distributed, the school ecosystem must evolve into the first line of prevention, identification, and intervention. Furthermore, we must embrace technology, especially AI-driven tools for early identification, risk stratification, adaptive learning, and personalized intervention. Artificial intelligence offers the potential to bridge human resource gaps, scale interventions equitably, and enable precision in educational and mental health response. ⁶ Until we have robust evidence and adequate resources, we firmly believe that our focus should remain on the pragmatic aspects rather than idealistic ones.