Advertisement

Human Arenas

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 228–244 | Cite as

Learning Disabled and Their Education in India

  • Pradeep KumarEmail author
  • Niti Agrawal
ARENA OF SCHOOLING

Abstract

The issue of disability reveals an alarming concern of inclusive education and exclusion process in ongoing development. Disability and particularly learning disability exclude a sizeable population of children out of school, increase dropout and a challenge for universalisation of education and development of any society. A rough indication gives high prevalence about 10%; however, actual estimation seems very difficult to estimate owing to absence of concept and separation with other forms of disability. This paper is divided into three parts. First part deals about the concept of learning disability and its disguise nature within disability; thus, its nature, prevalence, identification and spread in India need to examine. Second part is focused on analyses, the policy and different interventions to deal with challenges, while third part deals with the education system and the educational statuses of these learning disables.

Keywords

Inclusive education Learning disability Indian education policy 

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that, it is stupid”—Albert Einstein

Disability is a serious concern of any society for its continuous progress and development. Different studies including UNCF finds persons with disabilities experience worse educational and labour market outcomes and they are more likely to be poor than persons without disabilities (Gannon and Nolan 2004; Kuklys 2005; She and Livermore 2007; Buddelmeyer and Verick 2008; Meyer and Mok 2008; Emerson et al. 2009; Mitra et al. 2009). A study (OECD 2009) covering 21 upper-middle and high-income countries shows higher poverty rates among working-age people with disabilities than among working-age people without disability in all but three countries (Norway, Slovakia, and Sweden). The expenditure pattern of persons with disability has shown sizeable proportion on their health and educational opportunities (Zaidi and Burchardt 2005). Despite of the higher expenditure on education, their literacy rate and educational indicators are far behind the average and compared to non-disable persons worldwide. Similarly, the relative poverty risk between working-age disabled and working-age non-disabled people has shown to be the highest in Australia, Ireland and the Republic of Korea, and the lowest gap in Iceland, Mexico and the Netherlands. For employment, working-age people with disabilities are more unemployed both private and government institution owing to various misconceptions like performance, efficiency, stigma etc. When employed, they are more likely to work part-time and they had low incomes; unless they were highly educated and have a job.

These are the analysis of mostly conventional disability not learning disability. Learning disability is still not legitimised and recognise in many countries; therefore, its population and prevalence is not very clear. In this direction, major initiative observed in developed countries—the USA, Europe, Australia, Japan and Singapore while developing countries are less sensitise towards the problem. Research studies shows that in all cultures there are children who seem to have normal intelligence but they have severe difficulty in learning oral language, acquiring reading and writing skills or doing mathematics. The problem of LD has been reported from many parts of the world: Great Britain (Wedell 2001), Scandinavia (Lundberg and Holen 2001), Canada (Wong and Hutchinson 2001), Australia (Elkins 2001), South America (Bravo et al. 2001), Israel (Shalev 2004), China (Hsu 1988) and Japan (Masayoshi Tsuge 2001). Perhaps one positive aspect of learning disability (LD) is their gifted and talented quality, according to International Academy for Research in Learning Disability (IARLD) finds that some children with learning disabilities also may be gifted or talented which include spontaneity, inquisitiveness, imagination, boundless enthusiasm and emotionality as unique ability. Therefore, they should be encouraged to this special developed ability in their respective areas such as music, art, science, language and sports.

This paper is divided into three parts. First part, deals about the concept of learning disability and its disguise nature within disability, thus, its nature, prevalence, identification and spread in India need to examine. Second part is focussed on education system and the educational statuses of these deprive groups, while third part analyses the policy and different interventions to deal with challenges.

Learning Disability

Before coming to learning disability, it is important have a glance of overall disability. However, there is limited information about disable persons across the world due to variation in the concept of ‘disability’ in each society: differences in methodology to assess, types of disability, their prevalence and most important social perception. Roughly, World Health Organization estimated global adult disability prevalence is more than a billion (15.6%) whereas among children this figure is almost 1/3 prevalence of total disable population i.e. the number of children aged 0–14 years experiencing moderate or severe disability is 93 million (5.1%) in 2004, After 1 year, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF 2005) estimated the number of children with disabilities under age 18 at 150 million. A recent review of the literature in low-income and middle-income countries reports child disability prevalence from 0.4 to 12.7% depending on the study and assessment tool. World disability studies show that low-income countries pointed to the problems in identifying and characterising disability as a result of the lack of cultural and language-specific tools for assessment (WHO 2011, pp. 21–51). This may account in part for the variation in prevalence figures and suggests that children with disabilities are not being identified or receiving needed services. A study of 54 countries found that all countries have severe or extreme functional disables. Its prevalence is estimated at 12% for all adults almost 39% among the elderly (Mitra and Sambamoorthi 2014). Further, women have higher prevalence than men.

Kirk (1962) in his popular text book Educating Exceptional Children defined LD as a retardation, disorder or delayed development in one or more of the processes of speech, language, reading, writing, arithmetic or other school subjects resulting from a psychological handicap caused by a possible cerebral dysfunctional and or social problems disturbances. Kirk too have viewed that it is not the result of mental retardation, sensory deprivation, cultural and instructional factors. Further Bateman (1982) differed and defined through aptitude–achievement discrepancy. According to him, children who have learning disorders are those who manifest an educationally significant discrepancy between their estimated intellectual potential and actual level of performance related to basic disorder in the learning process. While the study and identification of learning disable is infant stage in developing and underdeveloped countries, particularly in South Asia countries neither any policy has developed nor is its prevalence known. Most of the learning disable (LD) population either unidentified or included into broad concept of disability. Sarva Siksha Abhiyan enumerated disability categories as seeing, hearing, speech, moving, mental disorder and other; while this has broaden ten categories of disabilities—blindness, low vision, speech impairment, hearing impairment, mental impairment, locomotors impairment, learning disability, cerebral palsy, Autism and multiple disabilities in 2012–2013.

The children suffering with LD are in sizable proportion like, 5.4% in America (2002), 4% in Singapore and rough estimate shows more than 10% in India. Whatever the proportion of prevalence depends on LD concept which may vary from country to country but the most significant aspect of LD is its identification and remediation of learning disable to integrate them to main stream society. Therefore, the prevalence of disability largely varies with the perception of society about disability, their enumeration system, social stigma, policy and overall development. The prevalence of learning disable (LD) is much higher than conventional disability (orthopaedic, visual, hearing and speaking); it has changed perception as well as all early figures of disability. Washington Summit on Learning Disability (1994) viewed that ‘no other disability condition affects so many people and yet has such a low public profile and low level of understanding as LD’. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) recent data finds that the autism prevalence rate has going, one autism child out of 88 children in 2012 has increased one out of 68 in 2014 (Jha 2014). Autism centre (AIIMS, New Delhi) also reported the increasing trend of autism cases. Further elaborated that 2–3, 4–5 and 7–8 cases per month detected in 2002–2005, 2005–2008 and 2008–2014 respectively; total prevalence is estimated about 10 million Indians suffer from autism and related disorder (Times of India 2015: 5); however, all these figures are rough estimation.

Similarly, learning disability in India still not much aware in society, hardly few empirical studies available and never nationwide enumeration conducted by any agency thus rough estimation indicates about 10% children and adult may suffer with these problems. Most of the learning disables information is unknown in society as hardly considered it under the concept of conventional disability, society also considered their low status, social stigma owing to various reasons. Learning disability may be hidden under Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), mental disorder and other category of disability. Therefore, there is no exact information of prevalence of learning disables available. In 2003, NSSO (report no. 485) estimates 1.8% (18.49 million) of the total Indian population is disable which included physical and mental disorder. Contrary to this, 2001 Indian Census enumerated disable population 2.13% (2191 million) of total population 1028 million. NSSO has excluded learning disables data as there was no category other than conventional disability in their listed schedule. The report also indicates that about 10.63% of the disabled persons suffered from more than one type of disabilities and indicated the underestimation of disability due to social stigma and overlooking lesser degree of impairment. Very surprisingly, NSSO reports before 2002, mental disorder was not within the concept of disability for enumeration as we can see last three such reports (NSSO report no. 305, 337 and 393).

Few empirical studies are relevant in this context referred by Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) Learning Disability report—an epidemiological study of child and adolescent psychiatric disorder of Bangalore (1995–2000) conducted by NIMH (Bangalore) reveals that the prevalence is 12% among 4–16 years old; study on specific learning disability (SLD) conducted by LTMG Hospital (Mumbai) reveals that out 2225 children visited for any kind of disability certificate, 640 diagnosed SLD (2006); Shree Chithira Thirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, Kerala (1997) revealed that about 10% children are having developmental language disorder and 8–10% school population are suffering from LD; while another research of 10 panchayats in Kerala about child language disorder finds 16% school children from class I to VIII reported by the Institute of Communicative and Cognitive Neuroscience (ICCONS) (Marita Adam et al 2014).

LD is a broad concept which includes different forms of inabilities by which children with specific disorder(s) cannot learn or acquire skills by the normal or existing teaching-learning process owing to their specific problem. U.S. Government has called it SLD and defined it as a ‘disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, spell or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning problems primarily the result of visual, hearing, emotional disturbance or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantages.

Still the concept is evolving and there is no consensus on one definition that explicitly determine all the categories of disorder; however, broadly it encompasses difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning and/or mathematical skills. Therefore, it is very clear that LD is not a single disorder, G. Reid Lyon listed seven broad categories of disorders (a) receptive language (listening), (b) expressive language (speaking), (c) basic reading skills, (d) reading comprehension, (e) written expression, (f) mathematics calculation and (g) mathematical reasoning. These separate types of learning disabilities frequently co-occur one other and also with other social and emotional problem.

Some learning disabilities with identification and other details are as follows:
  1. (1)

    Dyslexia—It has observed problem in reading or mistake in the order of alphabets. This is often characterised by difficulties with accurate word recognition, decoding and spelling learning disability. This learning studies shows causal analysis of dyslexia is neurological differences at birth or genetic inheritance whereas effective support dyslexia problem can overcome and may be performed better than average. There are numerous dyslexia effected who performed excellent in different areas like Albert Einstein (Scientist), Alexander Graham Bell (inventor), Pablo Picasso (Artist), Mohammad Ali (Boxxer), William Butler Yeats (Poet) and many more which seem surprise. Similarly, more than 100 famous people are having dyslexia (Levinson 2016). Therefore, dyslexia does not mean poor intelligence and poor instruction rather considered right developed brain persons.

     
  2. (2)

    Dysgraphia—The term has rooted in Greek term dysgraphia (dys-graphia) refers to impaired writing, orthographic code-finger sequence and movement of muscles, which shows deficiency in handwriting or mistakes in terms of spelling. It may overlap with other learning disabilities such as speech impairment, attention deficit disorder, coordination disorder and other disorders. Dysgraphia is characterised as a learning disability in the category of written expression when one’s writing skills are different unexpected given in a situation. This is also caused by biological reasons with particularly genetic or brain base disorder in working memory problem. In this learning disability, persons fail to develop normal connections among different brain regions needed for writing skill. The effected individuals have difficulty in automatically remembering and mastering the sequence of motor movements required to write letters or numbers.

     
  3. (3)
    Dyscalculia—This learning disability pertaining to arithmetic or calculation skill and behaviour in which a wide range from simple daily usage to complex involving mathematics. There is no proper attention and available research on this learning disability; however, this problem has observed often but not categorised as learning disability. It can vary from person to person and also affect people differently at different stages of life like childhood stage, adolescent stage and adult stage due to different level of skills.
    1. (a)

      The National Center for Learning Disability (New York) explains two major weakness can contribute to math learning disabilities:

       
    2. (b)

      Visual-spatial difficulties, which result in a person having trouble processing what the eye sees.

       
    3. (c)

      Language processing difficulties, which result in a person having trouble processing and making sense of what the ear hears symptoms of identification, assessment test, remediation and intervention strategy.

       
    4. (d)

      Till now, it has identified two major causes concerning again biological disorders. One is either genetic or hereditary which is innate (pre-birth) difficult to identify in initial stage. Secondly, it also develops due to brain injury called ‘acalculia’. However, the problem can deal effectively with education therapy.

       
     
  4. (4)

    Dyspraxia—This is a serious learning disability among children and adults having difficulty in fine skills and/or motor coordination often called developmental coordination disorder. It may affect verbal speech, writing skill, perception, thought (memory, planning and organising) and everyday life other skills. However, many other identification of dyspraxia is still in experimental process like recently, reveals eye movement difficulty under dyspraxia (Dyspraxia Foundation, UK). The learner with developmental verbal dyspraxia often has an impaired speech processing system, which affects his/ her ability to make sound with letter links and to carry out phonological awareness tasks such as segmenting, blending, and rhyming. A case study of at LTMMC and LTMGH (Mumbai) finds that school children with Klinefelter syndrome (KS) were presented with language delay, learning disabilities and social problems/social problems (Gajre and Rajeshwari 2012). It also coex-ists with other conditions such as attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), dys-lexia, language disorders and social, emotional and behavioural impairments. The exact causes of dyspraxia are still not known, it is thought to be caused by a disruption in the way messages from the brain are transmitted to the body and led to smooth movement and coordination disorder.

     

World Health Organization listed dyspraxia as ‘specific development disorder of motor functions’. It is distinct from other motor disorders such as cerebral palsy and stroke and occurs across the range of intellectual abilities. Recent research has shown that children with developmental verbal dyspraxia whose speech difficulties persist beyond the age of 5 and 6 years are at risk of having literacy difficulties (Dyspraxia foundation, UK). The risk is further increased if there is a family history of speech, language or specific learning difficulties.

Besides these specific learning disabilities, there are other specific disorders less or not identified yet, and persons with disability are suffering with other associated difficulty in society like, isolation, emotional disorders, low self-esteem, lowered self-efficacy, heightened anxiety and depression. They may put in extra efforts in order to have the same achievements as their peers, but often get frustrated because they feel that their hard work does not pay off. Here, the role of family, community and teachers are very important to understand, positively reflect, and cooperative approach towards these sufferers. In this regard, some individual and institutional initiatives coming forward for training and supportive instruments but confined in urban areas, however, rural poor among disable need special attention. Policy intervention has played important role across the globe particularly the USA, UK and few developed countries. In this regard, Indian government also enacted policies on disability as well as their education opportunity. However, specific policy for LD still not emerged yet.

Policy

Policy is an important formal document of any country/ state that gives the direction and decision on specified subject for desired outcome(s). The policies on disability and their educational opportunity in India are important to examine the ongoing status of differently able and their scope of inclusion. India’s disability policy, its wider coverage, identification and prevalence started very late owing to various reasons—religious misconceptions about disability, absence of democratic setup as well as rehabilitation institutions, widely existence of social stigma and others reasons. However, a policy on education is visible since India’s independence and even before independence education facilities was available with lower pace and limited acceptability.

All policies and approaches of disability possess a basic question that ‘how disability measured in society’. Earlier disability viewed as deficit model where it has assumed deficiency and abnormality on the part of individual and the society’s role has reduced. In this model, rights and welfare of disables was confined with individual charity and the act of religious domain. This notion led to create social stigma and loss of dignity in society for disables (Mehrotra 2006). With increasing health care facilities and awareness about the causes of disability the deficit model slightly changes to biomedical model. Biomedical model considered the disability as caused by disease, injury and other health conditions rather any deficiency of individual. Accordingly education policy developed for people with disabilities in special school where medical assistance has given importance. This approach adopted and many special schools and institutions established for the educational need as well as the kind of disability specially for visual impaired, mental retarded, orthopaedic and other forms of disability. Late eighteenth century such school established in France and the UK and later on followed in Europe and other parts of the world.

However, the participation and integration of disables in masses still far away. Two forms of reactions observed against the existing notion of disability—firstly, socio-political mobilisation and democratic struggles of disables and secondly, numerous empirical studies emerged across the globe (Parsons 1964; Goffman 1961, 1963; Illich 1975; Oliver 1990). The thrust of these reactions was to not only basic facilities rather rehabilitation with social integration which led to develop social model of disability. Social model emerged with the pre-assumption that disability is not caused by medical conditions rather social condition. The changes in social construction and social barriers can only led to social participation of disables with masses. The overt role of medical model in which nonmedical problems often defined and treated as medical problems, like illness and disorders further reinforced the understanding of social condition. Therefore, social model largely accepted and adopted by United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) with the support of 172 countries.

Before this, World Health Organization developed a framework of health and disability functioning popularly known as the International Classification of Functioning (ICF) for both individual and population in 2001. It is a measurement of disability comprising three important criteria—body function, activity limitation and participation restriction in society; thus, defines disability as ‘bio-psycho-social model’. As a result of this, policy evolved or changes in developed and developing nations. Some early and important steps initiated in countries like Canada, the USA, the UK, Australia, Hong Kong; later on, South Asian region too joined in this affirmative action (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1985, Americans Disabilities Act 1992, Disability Discrimination Act 1992 in Australia, Disability Discrimination Ordinance 1995 in Hong Kong, National Policy for Persons with Disabilities 2002 in Pakistan, Bangladesh Persons with Disability Welfare Act 2011, Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 1996, amended 2003 in Sri Lanka, National Policy and Plan of Action on Disability 2006 in Nepal). With the increasing pace of social model, special school approach has reduced its significance and new integrated school approach emerged in Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Portugal and other countries. UNESCO has advocated inclusive education system for three important reasons, i.e. integration at school education system with peer groups, social level to reduce stigmatisation and economically less costly affairs. India too followed mostly integrated approach but also continued earlier established few special institutions keeping the higher degree of disabilities.

Towards the needs of disable in India, initial effort has taken by voluntary organisations like, Christian missionaries in school as well as voluntary charitable institution in 1880s (Mehta 1982). Subsequently, first school for the blind people started in 1887; In 1888 an institute for the deaf and mute persons were established. However, first institution for mental retarded people was set up in 1934. Similarly, most of the initiatives for learning disability for their identification test, training and intervention contributed by private institutions till date. There was no attention has given towards for learning disables under this government policy in India.

After independence, Government of India has also initiated some steps by safeguarding rights through enactment of the national policy encompassing all forms of disabilities called ‘national policy for persons with disability’ (1993). Before this, education commission (later on became NPE 1968) recommended education for persons with disability must be right-based approach rather humanitarian approach with ongoing integrated education system and flagship education programme for universalisation of school education known as Sarva Siksha Abhiyan/Madhyamik Siksha also considered. However, this document has not mentioned the status of the learning disable; rather given five forms of disability—visual, hearing, speech, locomotors and mental disorder. Three important legal enactments evolved for rights, training and integrate them into mainstream society. These are:
  1. (1)

    Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of (Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which provides education, employment, creation of barrier free environment, social security, etc.

     
  2. (2)

    National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disability Act, 1999 has provisions for legal guardianship of the four categories and creation of enabling environment for as much independent living as possible.

     
  3. (3)

    Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 deals with the development of manpower for providing rehabilitation services.

     

Following this, various institutions established to support disable persons include in masses. These are Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Institute for Physically Handicapped, New Delhi 1976; National Institute for the Orthopaedically Handicapped, Kolkata 1978; National Institute of Visually Handicapped, Dehradun 1979; National Institute of Mentally Handicapped, Secundrabad 1984; Ali Yavar Jung National Institute for the Hearing Handicapped, Mumbai 1983; Swami Vivekan and National Institute of Rehabilitation, Training and Research, Cuttack 1984; National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Multiple Disabilities, Chennai 2005; The Indian Sign Language Research and Training Centre, New Delhi 2001. In this process, an apex institution also established for rehabilitation ‘the Rehabilitation Council of India (1992) as statutory body under Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Government of India) and many institution also established to address disability issues (World Bank 2018).

Besides above mentioned national institutes, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment also established seven Composite Regional Centres (CRCs) for Persons with Disabilities. The basic objectives of CRCs to provide both preventive and promotional aspects of rehabilitation like education, health, employment and vocational training, research and manpower development programmes for persons with disabilities. These CRCs are located in Srinagar (J&K), Sundernagar (Himachal Pradesh), Lucknow (U.P.), Bhopal (M.P.), Guwahati (Assam), Patna (Bihar) and Ahmedabad (Gujarat); The Ministry has further extended this Composite Regional Centre to Kozhikode (Kerala) and Ahmadabad (Gujarat).

India’s National Policy for Persons with Disability (2006) considers that every child with disability must access to appropriate pre-school, primary and secondary level education by 2020. In this policy, 21 points explained for special care will be taken towards disables educational facilities and employment. In 2006, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE) developed the National Policy for People with Disabilities (Govt. of India, 2006) which recognised people with disabilities as an important asset to the country’s human resources, and focused on their physical, educational and economic rehabilitation. In relation to education, it specifically noted:

‘Education is the most effective vehicle of social and economic empowerment. In keeping with the spirit of the Article 21A of the Constitution guaranteeing education as a fundamental right and Section 26 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, free and compulsory education has to be provided to all children with disabilities up to the minimum age of 18 years’ (MSJE 2006 p. 7).

However, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has replaced earlier PWD Act (1995) and broaden the concept of disability from seven types to 21 types of disabilities. In this broad concept of functional aspects of disability added new categories such as speech and language disability, specific learning disability and three blood disorders; separated three categories of blood disorder like dwarfism and muscular dystrophy. However, it differs with Sarva Siksha Abiyan’s children with special needs (CWSN) concept which identifies only ten forms of disabilities. Hence, the prevalence of all forms of disability neither identified nor enumerated anywhere. Further, these differences will act as barriers for implementation of inclusive policy and programmes. There is an urgent need for similar concept of disability across the country for effective understanding of disability nature, prevalence, its status and changes.

Disability is a subject of ‘state list’ (seventh schedule) of the Indian Constitution; hence, each state government has its own initiatives to make programme and development policy towards persons with disabilities in order to empower and integrate them to mainstream society. According to Census of India (2011), Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Maharastra and Uttar Pradesh has highest concentration of PWD, i.e. more than 2.2 million, 2.3 million, 2.9 million and 4.1 million, respectively and together constitute 43.7% of total disability population. Each state is more or less following the policy of central government. None of these states having their own regional and contextual CWSN policy document except few selected schemes and allocation. Keeping these issues in mind, recent draft education policy (MHRD 2016) has recommended independent board may set up under the state education. Acts to oversee the implementation of the scheme and six monthly reports from the districts should be provided. Therefore, each state should contextualise the national policy according to their regional needs. State-wise policy, their intervention and expenditure further need to analyse and examine the regional status.

It has revealed through various studies that policy and its implementation reduced the disparities in socio-economic and health by reducing the differences in education attainment. Education considered one important vehicle for social mobility and changing society. Keeping the importance of education the policies still evolving to cater needs of differently able children, but lacking specific policy for learning disable.

LD Education Status

Education is one core component for holistic development, empowerment and social mobility in any society. Nelson Mandela viewed that ‘the education is the most powerful weapon by which one can change the world’. This has also revealed through various policy documents, empirical researches, various case studies and accordingly international and national organisation has evolved common education target ‘education for all’ at Jometian world conference (1990). Thereafter, Dakar declaration (2000) evaluated the progress of education programme and reaffirms the target and set goal Education for All (EFA) by 2015 with special emphasis on inclusive education. World Disability Report 2011 provides a rough estimate of children (0–14 years) living with disabilities range between 93 million and 150 million. Many children and adults with disabilities have historically been excluded from mainstream education opportunities. It also reveals large divide worldwide between able and disable primary education completion, i.e. more than 10% and very surprising this divide is higher in high-income countries with comparison to low-income countries (see Table 1). However, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that there are 15 to 20 percent of learners will have a special educational need at some point in their school career. Another empirical study of 2–9 years children’s of 18 countries of the world, mainly in low-income and middle samples, reveals a severe emerging threat to global child health priority and its impact on early learning. It shows 23% of children aged 2–9 years screened positive for disability in the 18 participating countries. However, children aged 2–4 years and 6–9 years were screened significantly more positive for disability due to lack of nutrition and not attended school, respectively. Further study reveals a large variation among 18 selected countries, Central African Republic shows highest 48% while Uzbekistan shows only 3% and Bangladesh from south Asia shows 21% children screened median score for disability. Similarly, disability restricts children to acquire education and skills unlike other children. Through a study of 30 countries, it has been observed that children with disabilities are at risk of not fulfilling their educational potential and are more vulnerable to serious illness. (Kuper et al. 2014). Similarly, a study conducted between 1996 and 2004, found 6% to 9% of persons in the working-age group (21-61 y) were identified as having a disability and consistently had higher total health expenditures and economic burden compared with their counterparts without disabilities. In 2004, the average total expenditures were estimated at $10,508 for persons with disabilities and at $2256 for those without disabilities (Mitra, Findley and Sambamoorthi 2009). However, this expenditures increased over time for persons with disability. This exclusion is likely to have a long-term deleterious impact on their lives unless services are adapted to promote their inclusion.
Table 1

Education outcomes for disabled and not disabled respondents

Individuals

Low-income countries

High-income countries

All countries

Not disabled

Disabled

Not disabled

Disabled

Not disabled

Disabled

Male

 Primary school completion

55.6%

45.6%*

72.3%

61.7%*

61.3%

50.6%*

 Mean years of education

6.43

5.63*

8.04

6.60*

7.03

5.96*

Female

 Primary school completion

42.0%

32.9%*

72.0%

59.3%*

52.9%

41.7%*

 Mean years of education

5.14

4.17*

7.82

6.39*

6.26

4.98*

18–49

 Primary school completion

60.3%

47.8%*

83.1%

69.0%*

67.4%

53.2%*

 Mean years of education

7.05

5.67*

9.37

7.59*

7.86

6.23*

50–59

 Primary school completion

44.3%

30.8%*

68.1%

52.0%*

52.7%

37.6%*

 Mean years of education

5.53

4.22*

7.79

5.96*

6.46

4.91*

60 and over

 Primary school completion

30.7%

21.2%*

53.6%

46.5%*

40.6%

32.3%*

 Mean years of education

3.76

3.21

5.36

4.60*

4.58

3.89*

Source: World Health Organization (2011) World Disability Report, page 207, Geneva, Switzerland

Estimates are weighted using WHS post-stratified weights, when available (probability weights otherwise) and age-standardised. *T test suggests significant difference from “Not disabled” at 5%

World Health Organization has also stress the significance of education for disable in recently published World Disability Report 2013 with fourfold supportive arguments as follows (page 205).
  • First, education contributes to human capital formation and is thus a key determinant of personal well-being and welfare.

  • Second, excluding children with disabilities from educational and an employment opportunity has high social and economic costs. For example, adults with disabilities tend to be poorer than those without disabilities, but education weakens this association.

  • Third, countries cannot achieve Education for All or the Millennium Development Goal (MDGs) of universal completion of primary education without ensuring access to education for children with disabilities.

  • Fourth, countries that are signatories to the United Nations ‘Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (CRPD) cannot fulfill their responsibilities under Article 24.

Following these policy and arguments, India also implemented several initiatives in different Acts, policy, programmes inclusive education and empowerment of differently able. The Article 21A of the Indian constitution guarantee education as fundamental right as well as the Persons with Disability (PWD) ACT, 1995, section 26 specifically claims free and compulsory education to all children with disabilities unto the age of 18 years. The education commission (1964–1966), Integrated Education for Disable Education (1974), National Education Policy (1986), Indian government project with support of UNESCO called Project Integrated Education for Disabled (PIED) in 1987, District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) in 1994, Persons With Disability ACT (1995), National Curriculum Frameworks (2005) and flagship school education programme known as Sarva Siksha Abhiyan/Madhyamik Siksha Abhiyan focussed on inclusive education and special attention has given marginalised section of society (MHRD 2012).

These initiatives enhanced quantitative change in school education enrolment; enhanced literacy and overall educational level but need to focus on qualitative aspects not only quantitative change. The target to minimise school dropout rate, improve teacher-student ratio and include the excluded and marginalised children under this flagship education programme to achieve its objectives. In order to accomplish this task of ‘education for all’, thrust must be given to inclusive education particularly inclusion of disable children. Under this category a sizeable proportion of disable children are away from school due to insufficient infrastructure and supportive teaching-learning process for disables, lack of sufficient policy and its implementation and most important social stigma towards them. DISE flash statistic report reflected nationwide 662 districts of India that CWSN children’s primary school enrolment is 1.18% and 1.3% in 2012–2013 and 2013–2014, respectively. While in upper primary level of enrolment is lower than primary school enrolment which indicates dropout children at upper primary; state-wise figure further also reveals large differences among states (see Table 2).
Table 2

State-wise distribution of govt. schools and CWSN children’s enrolment in India

No.

State/UT (India)

No. of total schools

Special schools (in percent)

Enrolment primary (in percent)

Enrolment upper primary (in percent)

2012–2013

2013–2014

Primary

All school

2012–2013

2013–2014

2012–2013

2013–2014

1

A and N Islands*

428

451

1.10

1.10

0.84

1.08

0.63

1.03

2

Andhra Pradesh

108,045

107,107

0.38

0.60

1.87

1.81

1.08

1.18

3

A P

4343

4413

0.47

0.65

4.26

4.31

2.99

3.31

4

Assam

61,110

61,689

0.21

0.20

1.65

1.81

0.92

1.14

5

Bihar

70,501

71,484

0.85

0.93

0.82

1.08

0.62

0.80

6

Chandigarh

187

188

0.00

1.04

1.19

2.42

2.35

3.36

7

D and NH*

52,822

53,766

1.25

1.31

1.00

1.96

0.91

1.73

8

Daman & Diu

303

315

0.00

0.31

0.40

0.63

0.39

0.55

9

Delhi

113

120

0.00

0.00

0.52

0.57

0.64

0.59

10

Goa

5064

5103

0.75

0.82

0.51

0.53

0.69

0.80

11

Gujarat

1509

1476

0.88

1.33

0.49

1.03

0.19

1.41

12

Haryana

40,943

42,745

0.15

0.18

1.08

1.10

1.02

1.11

13

H P*

21,300

22,004

0.30

0.24

0.86

0.14

0.63

0.12

14

J and K*

17,388

17,547

0.31

0.30

1.11

1.44

1.05

1.41

15

Jharkhand

27,493#

28,131

0.10

0.13

0.96

1.20

0.79

1.12

16

Karnataka

44,835

45,760

0.56

0.66

1.04

1.25

0.65

0.95

17

Kerala

70896a

60,984

0.71

0.82

1.47

1.37

1.21

1.51

18

Lakshadweep

15,534

16,287

1.07

1.67

3.54

3.88

4.12

5.67

19

Madhya Pradesh

46

44

0.00

0.00

5.74

4.05

4.35

3.06

20

Maharashtra

140,993

141,859

1.17

1.39

0.49

0.50

0.48

0.50

21

Manipur

100,084

95,235

1.27

1.30

1.98

1.91

1.06

1.68

22

Meghalaya

3957

4655

0.85

1.26

1.17

1.70

0.27

0.94

23

Mizoram

12,796

12,878

0.50

0.48

1.15

1.32

0.65

0.56

24

Nagaland

2935

3019

0.40

0.41

2.42

6.48

2.75

2.98

25

Odisha

3370

3359

0.55

0.57

2.48

2.47

0.81

1.57

26

Puducherry

66,689

67,271

1.98

2.08

1.99

2.11

1.29

1.90

27

Punjab

707

709

0.00

0.56

0.45

0.58

0.36

0.79

28

Rajasthan

30,181

29,833

0.65

0.48

3.13

2.86

1.33

2.16

29

Sikkim

109,189

112,984

0.65

0.72

0.60

1.01

0.35

0.75

30

Tamil Nadu

1235

1279

2.60

2.58

1.21

1.35

0.64

0.76

31

Tripura

55,753

56,535

0.39

0.54

1.05

1.27

0.90

1.72

32

Uttar Pradesh

4503

4745

0.31

0.38

0.40

0.65

0.34

0.69

33

Uttarakhand

221,653

239,817

1.58

2.11

0.76

0.84

0.70

0.67

34

West Bengal

23,207

23,338

0.91

0.95

0.58

0.93

0.39

0.65

35

All States and UT

92,066c

94,572

0.14

0.19

1.37

1.52

0.82

0.90

Source: Compiled from NUEPA (2013) Flash Statistics DISE-2013-14, MHRD, New Delhi and NUEPA (2014) The Elementary Education in India Progress Towards UEE, pages 1, 12 and 30, MHRD, New Delhi

*AP-Arunachal Pradesh, A and N-Andman and Nicobar Islands, D and NH-Dadra and Nagar Haveli, H P-Himachal Pradesh, J and K-Jammu and Kashmir

Under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA), the sizeable proportion of children are still out of school owing to various reasons, until and unless the inclusion of these excluded children of society given proper space with their pace of learning, appropriate teaching tools, requisite infrastructure and support the goal of universalisation of elementary education (UEE) will be a farce claim. Despite of the abundant fund, huge infrastructural support and mission-mode approach of the UEE in India, the target could not achieve till date. There is an urgent need to address this grave concern particularly at elementary level to achieve the target of education for all. NSSO (2003) reveals that only 9% disable persons of total Indian disable population are educated at secondary level only and 55% are still illiterate despite minimal concept of literacy. Further, the rate of illiteracy goes up in rural India, i.e. 59%, while 87% mentally retarded disable are illiterate followed that visually and hearing impaired. It also describes that the details about different levels of general education among disable are ascertained.

So far, as concerns of learning disability studies reveal that early detection of learning disability is best strategy to rehabilitate and integrate them with mainstream society. Hence, it must be identify at infant stage in early schooling to redress this serious challenges. In this direction under SSA programme some steps has initiated for identification of CWSN children but not all types of specific learning disables. SSA has identified 1.5% of children under CWSN category (Table 3).
Table 3

Identification of CWSN Children under SSA

Year

Number identified as CWSN

2002–2003

683,554

2003–2004

1,459,692

2004–2005

1,592,722

2005–2006

2,017,404

2006–2007

2,399,905

2007–2008

2,621,077

Source:Nidhi Singhal (2011) Education of Children with disabilities in India, UNESCO background paper, Paris

Indian government has initiated nationwide mandate for not only identification but providing education to every child with special needs irrespective of the kind, social category and degree of disability, in an appropriate environment. A household surveys and special surveys have been also conducted in all the states to identify the children with special needs. In 2014, 3.268 million children with special needs have been identified, where as 2.646 million in 2007–2008 children with special needs identified under SSA programme; 87.38% of those identified are enrolled in schools. Later on, about 95.33% (2011–2012) of the identified children with special needs have been covered through various strategies like enrolment in schools, school readiness programme and home-based education. Learning disability was first time added under SSA within broad category children with special needs (CWSN) in 2012–2013. The DISE data of learning disable children at elementary level are given below (see Table 4). However, the definition of learning disability neither mentioned in CWSN category nor in SSA documents. Similarly, other term also used for children with special education need (SEN) and widely prevalent in Indian context particularly educational needs (NCERT 2006).
Table 4

Learning disable enrolment up to Elementary Level in India

Year

Male children

Female children

Total children

2012–2013

144,274

112,742

257,016

2013–2014

159,559

124,867

284,426

2014–2015

140,084

111,505

251,589

2015–2016

146,702

114,839

261,541

Source: NUEPA (2013 to 2016) Elementary Education in India: Analytical Tables, Progress Towards UEE, MHRD, New Delhi

Apart from these, there are various isolated sources that have identified the prevalence of learning disabilities across India. A pilot scheme to integrate disabled children in Siksha Karmi Project schools has been launched recently in Ghatol (Tribal) and Balotra (Desert) blocks. A survey has revealed that 6% of children up to 14 years of age in the two blocks suffer from physical disabilities. So far, 458 disabled children have been enrolled in SK schools in these blocks (Agrawal 1999, p. 30). The Institute for Communicative and Cognitive Neurosciences (ICCONS), Kerala, has conducted a research programme of 162 children having language disorders and developing research and rehabilitation programmes for learning disabilities. Screening for LDs for classes I to VII in schools with follow-up assessments by experts in 10 panchayats in Kerala revealed that 16% of these school children have a learning disability. Similarly, LTMG Hospital (2006), Mumbai, reveals that 640 children out of 2225 children visiting the hospital for certification of any kind of disability were diagnosed as having a specific learning disability (adapted from RCI learning disability). This study examined the personality characteristics of 180 boys and girls of ages 8, 9 and 10 with LD and compared with non-LD (NLD) about ‘children’s personality questionnaire’ (CPQ) at primary schools of Andhra Pradesh (India). It was found that LD and NLD subjects on the CPQ portray the LD child as having problems in social and emotional adjustment (G Sharma 2004). The study also revealed that the older LD children tended to show a more maladaptive behavioural disposition than the younger, and there was a significant gender effect among LD children (Mehrotra 2006). The UN report said that while India has made significant improvement in primary education enrolment, the figures for children with disabilities are staggering. Out of 2.9 million children with disabilities in India, 990,000 children aged 6 to 14 years (34%) are out of school (UN 2015). The percentages are even higher among children with intellectual disabilities (48%), speech impairments (36%) and multiple disabilities (59%). The report by the International Disability and Development Consortium said the exclusion of children with disabilities was a major obstacle to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which aim to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all by 2030 (NDTV 2016).

Therefore, there are many isolated empirical studies that show the LD existence and prevalence in various parts of India. The identification and prevalence is important but without proper assessment and suitable intervention, it is difficult to address the difficulty of learning disability. The child must be assessed all areas related to the suspected disability such as health condition with vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities. These detail assessment is significant for specific intervention and to know the exact status of LD while segregating from multiple disabilities and other forms. After identification of CWSN, The most important component is suitable intervention in early school system which considered very effective to manage difficulty better in early stage. In this regard, in-service teacher training for short period has initially started to deal PWD students and resource teacher concept has evolved for inclusive education in school. However, studies show still large gap of inclusive education due to lack of adequate training, sufficient number of trained teacher and available infrastructure in the school (Das et al. 2013; Singh 2017).

Conclusion

The social, psychological and economic conditions of differently able people linked with their education. Several studies revealed the education attainment has played a crucial role to reduce the disparities in socio-economic and health conditions. Education acted as one important vehicle for economic empowerment, social mobility and changing their status in society. However, the policies are still evolving to cater the needs of CWSN children as whole disability without specific policy for learning disables. The recognition and status of learning disability/ intellectual disability in India has emerged only few years back under broad category of disability is a ray of hope for such gifted child. Through DISE method, the identification and enumeration of LD school-going children have started in 2012–2013, earlier such children (up to 14 years) categorised under other forms of disability. Often intellectual disabilities are intermingled or recognised as mental disorder and other forms of disability which need to demarcate through assessment, in few cases both disabilities may co-exit not always. Thus, the basic information of LD, such as prevalence, functional difficulties in Indian context, variation in terms of socio-cultural factors and region-wise differences and most important the causes in Indian context are not explicit. Owing to these factors the proportionate special educators also neither available nor even trained for specific functional difficulties. Particularly, trained special teacher for learning disabilities are neither sufficient available in number nor adequate infrastructure are provided. Further, the situation of rural school system is more pathetic than urban areas in respect inclusive education.

Besides the state initiative, there are huge private initiatives like NGOs, private training institutes and rehabilitation centres (Mehrotra 2016, pp. 10–28) including corporate sectors playing isolated and scattered role towards disables. However, these attempts can play bigger role in society with collective coordination among themselves and intervention with assessment of needs. Unfortunately, coordination is very weak among these institutions. Government initiatives also lacking effective inter-sectoral coordination among various departments, hospitals, Rehabilitation Council of India, schools, special educators and other concerned bodies on the issue of CWSN and particularly learning disables. Recent rights of disability act (2016) and draft of education policy (2016) has re-affirmed the right-based approach of education for disable and started a new initiative that children with multiple or severe disability were provided home-based education. If persons with disability unable to attend classes owing to higher functional difficulty then a special teacher will visit their home for providing education. It has also given thrust of research, empirical studies at different levels to deal upcoming challenges for disability studies, but remained confined at the policy due to paucity of funds and absence of focused attention, it seems a biggest missing link between policy and practice.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Prof. S. S. Jena, Former Project Director, Distance Education Programme – Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (DEP-SSA, MHRD national project, New Delhi) who ignited the initial spark on learning disability and given me the responsibility to develop module of teacher training programme on learning disability.

References

  1. Adam, Marita. et al. (2014) Learning disability, Rehabilitation Council of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, government of India, New Delhi, India, Accessed 15 Jan 2015. http://www.rehabcouncil.nic.in/writereaddata/ld.pdf.
  2. Agrawal, S. P. (1999). Development of education in India, Select Documentation 1995–1997 (Vol. 5). New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  3. Bravo et al. (2001) Learning disabilities in South America. In research and global perspectives in learning disabilities: Essays in honor of William M. Cruickshank, Edited by: Hallahan, D.P. and Keogh, B.K. 311–328. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Buddelmeyer, H., & Verick, S. (2008). Understanding the drivers of poverty dynamics in Australian households. The Economic Record, 84(266), 310–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Das, Ajay K., Kuyini, Ahmed B., & Desai, Ishwar P. (2013) Inclusive education in India: are the teachers prepared? International Journal of Special Education, Vol. 28, (1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  6. Elkins, J. (2001) Learning disabilities in Australia, In Research and global perspectives in learning disabilities: Essays in honor of William M. Cruickshank, Edited by: Hallahan, D.P. and Keogh, B.K. 181–195. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  7. Emerson, E., Madden, R., Robertson, J., Graham, H., Hatton, C., & Llewellyn, G. (2009). Intellectual and physical disability, social mobility, social inclusion & health. Lancaster: Centre for Disability Research, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  8. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. USA: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  9. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Gajre, M. P., & Rajeshwari, G. (2012). Case report- Klinefelter syndrome and specific learning disability. International Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences, 4(3), 52–54.Google Scholar
  11. Gannon, B., & Nolan, B. (2004). Disability and labour market participation in Ireland. The Economic and Social Review, 35(2), 135–155.Google Scholar
  12. Gottlieb, C., Matthew, A., Maenner, J., Cappa, C., & Maureen, S. D. (2009). Child disability screening, nutrition, and early learning in 18 countries with low and middle incomes: data from the third round of 18 countries. UNICEF’s Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (2005–06). Lancet, 374(9704), 1831–1839.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hsu, C (1988) Correlates of reading success and failure of logoraphic writing system, Thabnus, 6 (1), 33–39.Google Scholar
  14. Illich, I. (1975). Medical nemeses: the health exploration. London: Calder & Boyars.Google Scholar
  15. Kirk, S.A (1962) Educating exceptional children, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  16. Kuklys, W. (2005). Amartya Sen's capability approach. Theoretical insights and empirical application, London, Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Kuper, H., Monteath-van Dok, A., Wing, K., Danquah, L., Evans, J., Zuurmond, M., & Gallinetti, J. (2014). The impact of disability on the lives of children; cross-sectional data including 8,900 children with disabilities and 898,834 children without disabilities across 30 countries. PLoS One, 9(9), e107300.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107300 Accessed 21 Dec 2016.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Lundberg, I. and Hoien, T. 2001. “Learning disabilities in Scandinavia”. In Research and global perspectives in learning disabilities: Essays in honor of William M. Cruickshank, Edited by: Hallahan, D.P. and Keogh, B.K. 293–309. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Masayoshi, T. (2001) Learning disabilities in Japan. In Research and global perspectives in learning disabilities:Essays in honor of William M. Cruickshank, Edited by: Hallahan, D.P. and Keogh, B.K. 255–272. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Mehrotra, N. (2006). Negotiating gender and disability in rural Haryana, September- December. Sociological Bulletin, 55(3), 406–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mehrotra, N. (2016) A resource book on disability studies in India, centre for the study of social systems, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi https://www.jnu.ac.in/Faculty/nilika/A%20READER%20ON%20DISABILITY%20STUDIES%20IN%20INDIA.pdf Accessed 27 July 2018.
  22. Mehta, V (1982) Vedi, New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Meyer, B.D. & Mok, W.K.C. (2008) Disability, earnings, income and consumption. Working paper no. 06.10, The Harris School of Public Policy Studies, the University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
  24. MHRD (2012) Report to the people on education 2011-12, Government of India, New Delhi mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/document-reports/RPE_2011-12.pdf Accessed 21 Oct 2017.
  25. MHRD (2016) Draft national policy on education 2016, Report of the Committee for Evolution of the New Education Policy, Government of India, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  26. Mitra, S., Findley, P. A., & Sambamoorthi, U. (2009). Health care expenditures of living with a disability: total expenditures, out of pocket expenses and burden, 1996 to 2004. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90(9), 1532–1540.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitra, S., & Sambamoorthi, U. (2014). Disability prevalence among adults: Estimates for 54 countries and progress toward a global estimate. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(11), 940–947.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. MSJ&E (2006) National policy for persons with disabilities, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  29. NCERT (2006) Education of children with special needs, Position Paper 3.3, National Focus Group, National Center of Education Research and Training, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Government of India, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  30. NUEPA (2014) The elementary education in India progress towards UEE, flash statistics DISE-2013-14, Page-12 and 30, Department of School Education and Literacy, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  31. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009) Sickness, disability and work: keeping on track in the economic downturn, background paper, Directorate for Employment, labour and social affair, OECD, High-level forum, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  33. Parsons, T. (1964). Structure and personality. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  34. Sharma, G. (2004). A comparative study of the personality characteristics of primary-school students with learning disabilities and their non learning disabled peers. Learning Disability Quarterly., 27(3), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shalev, Ruth S. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia, Journal of Child Neurology, 19(10):765–771.Google Scholar
  36. She, P., & Livermore, G. A. (2007). Material hardship, poverty, and disability among working-age adults. Social Science Quarterly, 88(4), 970–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Singhal, N. (2011) Education of children with disabilities in India, a background paper prepared for the education for all global monitoring report, Reaching the marginalized, UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001866/186611e.pdf Accessed 22 Oct 2016.
  38. UNICEF. (2005). The state of the world’s children 2006, excluded and invisible. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.Google Scholar
  39. Wedell, K. (2001) British orientations to specific learning disabilities, In research and global perspectives in learning disabilities: Essays in honor of William M. Cruickshank, Edited by: Hallahan, D.P. and Keogh, B.K. 239–254. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. WHO (2011) World report on disability, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf Accessed 31 Apr 2017.
  41. Wong, B.Y.L. and Hutchinson, N. (2001) Learning disabilities in Canada. In research and global perspectives in learning disabilities: Essays in honor of William M. Cruickshank, Edited by: Hallahan, D.P. and Keogh, B.K. 197–215. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Zaidi, A., & Burchardt, T. (2005). Comparing incomes when needs differ: equivalization for the extra costs of disability in the UK. Review of Income and Wealth, 51(1), 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Online Document

  1. Durgesh Nandan Jha (30/06/2014)1 out of 68 kids autistic: US Study, The Times of India (New Delhi Edition), Page-5, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/One-in-68-children-autistic-US-study-says/articleshow/37490583.cms Accessed 17 Dec 2017.
  2. Levinson (29/01/2016) List of famous people having dyslexia http://www.dyslexiaonline.com/basics/famous_dyslexics.html Accessed 01 Dec 2016.
  3. NDTV (17/ 10/ 2016) Half of the world’s children with special needs are out of school: Report (Reuters), World, https://everylifecounts.ndtv.com/half-worlds-differently-abled-children-school-report-5942 Accessed 17 Oct 2016.
  4. Singh, Anisha (02/12/2017) Inclusive learning for children with disabilities; where does india stand, Education, NDTV https://www.ndtv.com/education/inclusive-learning-for-children-with-disabilities-where-does-india-stand-1782711 Accessed 22 July 2018.
  5. UN (21/ 01/ 2015) In India, high percentage of kids with disabilities still out of school: UN, Living hidden, https://www.firstpost.com/living/india-makes-progress-bringing-children-schools-un-2056745.html Accessed 05 May 2017.
  6. World Bank (2018) Country Profile on PWDs, Annex. India http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/Resources/Regions/South%20Asia/JICA_India_Annex.pdf Accessed 15 July 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Extension and Development StudiesIndira Gandhi National Open UniversityNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.New DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations