The Educational Forum

ISSN: 0013-1725 (Print) 1938-8098 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

Parental Perceptions of Learning Disabilities

Bobbie Kabuto

To cite this article: Bobbie Kabuto (2020): Parental Perceptions of Learning Disabilities, The
Educational Forum, DOI: 10.1080/00131725.2020.1737997

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1737997

Published online: 08 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=utef20
The Educational Forum
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1737997

Parental Perceptions of Learning Disabilities

Bobbie Kabuto
Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing,
New York, USA

ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
The research presented in this article analyses 242 written responses to Disabilities; families;
interview questions conducted with families who live in the United States sociocultural theory;
to explore parental perceptions of disabilities. The data were analyzed discourse
through a case study methodology and discourse analysis. Findings from
this study illustrate how parents drew upon both medical metaphors and
sociocultural factors to discuss their perceptions of their or their children’s
perceived learning disabilities.

The purpose of this research is to explore parental perceptions of the concept of learning
disabilities. Research suggests that families are not immune from the institutionalized concepts
of learning disabilities, such as discrepancies between IQ and achievement, grade-level per-
formance, individualized plans, and resource services, which attempt to separate individuals
who are special from those who are normal (Tomlinson, 2012). Complicating how families
understand and perceive the concept of learning disabilities is the lack of agreement or con-
sistency in how learning disabilities are defined and what they measure or do not measure
(Vaughn et al., 2003). For instance, studies use the term learning disabilities to define behaviors
that range from severe to mild cognitive challenges (e.g., Hewitt & Clarke, 2016; Rivera Drew,
2009) to specific learning disabilities in reading (i.e., dyslexia) or mathematics (i.e., dyscalculia)
(e.g., Haley et al., 2018; Zivoder et al., 2017). In this study, I use the general term learning
disability but recognize that it is unclearly defined, thus making the investigation into how
parents define and understand the term necessary.
A review of the literature that focuses on the intersection of learning disabilities and families
suggests great variation in how the term is used and understood in the context of families.
Furthermore, despite the increase in the number of parents with learning disabilities, limited
research investigates the perception of learning disabilities within families on the basis of who
in the family has been identified to have such disabilities (Rivera Drew, 2009). The literature
also indicates that perceptions of learning disabilities within families may differ based on who
has been identified to have these disabilities, suggesting that the label or identification of a
learning disability is not solely constrained within educational contexts and is carried over to
other types of social (i.e., families or employment) and temporal (i.e., past and present and
generational) contexts (Booth & Booth, 2000; Hewitt & Clarke, 2016).
The study of learning disabilities and families is becoming more complex as the number
of families with not only children but also parents who were identified to have learning

CONTACT Bobbie Kabuto Bobbie.Kabuto@qc.cuny.edu Queens College, City University of New York, 65-30 Kissena
Boulevard, Flushing, NY 11356, USA.
© 2020 Kappa Delta Pi
2 B. KABUTO

disabilities is increasing. A large body of literature focuses on families who have only children
with learning disabilities. Within this literature, researchers argue that the definitions and
notions of children’s disabilities may cause parents to develop negative perceptions of their
children as learners (Sauer & Lalvani, 2017). The body of research on this topic highlights
how parents believe that being classified with learning disabilities lowers teachers’ expectations,
develops social stigmas in their children, and perpetuates the notion of otherness, which
positions their children differently from those without disabilities (Lalvani & Polvere, 2013;
Sauer & Lalvani, 2017).
Some studies have suggested that having children with learning disabilities places emotional
and social stress on families (Dyson, 2010). Conversely, there is evidence to suggest that parents
reject the idea of having children identified with learning disabilities as a burden. In particular,
Sauer and Lalvani (2017) found that stressors discussed by parents with children with disabil-
ities were caused by typical ups and downs of daily family life and were often unrelated to
their children’s learning disabilities. Sauer and Lalvani (2017) and Lalvani (2015) argued that
deficit and medical perspectives that frame the concept of learning disabilities can inappro-
priately generate ideas of families with children with disabilities as dysfunctional and needing
expert guidance or interventions.
While families with children who have been identified with learning disabilities have been
studied widely in the home and school contexts, families with parents who have been identified
to have such disabilities have been far less extensively examined, particularly families that
include both parents and their children having learning disabilities. In addition, the few studies
that examine parents focus on their children’s perceptions of their parents’ learning disabilities.
Booth and Booth (2000) and Hewitt and Clarke (2016) studied children with and without
disabilities and their perceptions of their parents’ learning disabilities. Similar to the afore-
mentioned studies that focus only on children with learning disabilities, Hewitt and Clarke
(2016) found that families discussed the social stigma of having parents who were identified
with learning disabilities.
Further, families discussed how having parents with learning disabilities constructed oth-
erness as a family unit, in which their family was not considered a normal family; they often
cited experiencing bullying, social isolation, and social and emotional stress. At the same time,
Booth and Booth (2000) and Hewitt and Clarke (2016) emphasized how families with parents
having learning disabilities construct counter-narratives of family deficiency that challenge
notions of limited family functioning or families as unknowledgable, dysfunctional, or inca-
pable of supporting their children.
While similarities in perceptions exist across different types of families, there is one notable
difference. Booth and Booth (2000) found that families with both parents and children who
have been identified with learning disabilities better adjust to school than families with only
parents having disabilities. These families may have shared experiences, or, as Booth and Booth
(2000) described, “their family will mirror something of their own position in the life-cycle”
(p. 7), allowing for a common frame of reference and empathy of one another’s experience
when working with educational structures (Eden et al., 2017). The result is building resiliency
within parent and child generations and constructing a better understanding of one another’s
actions to develop positive social relationships.
The research highlighted here expands the literature by exploring parental perceptions of
learning disabilities within families through written responses to open-ended survey questions.
 The Educational Forum 3

In this investigation, the concept of learning disabilities is viewed through a sociocultural

theoretical framing as an alternative lens to a positivist perspective that often ignores that
ways in which educational structures, in particular, and society, in general, disable not only
students but also families.
Using discourse analysis of 242 written survey responses, this study uses cross-case and
within-case analyses to compare how parents perceived their own and their children’s learning,
how their idea of a learning disability connected with their perceptions of themselves and
their children as learners, and the impacts that the label of learning disability has on the family
on the basis of who in the family was identified with a learning disability (i.e., the parent, the
child, or both the parent and child). The research presented here further explores these points
through the following two questions: (1) How do parents use written discourses to construct
their understanding of disabilities? and (2) How are these written discourses different or
similar on the basis of who in the family is identified with a learning disability? This study
concludes with implications for educators and future research for studying the notion of
learning disabilities within families.

A Sociocultural Perspective to Disabilities and Families

A sociocultural perspective, influenced by Vygotskian theory (1986), cultural psychology
(Vygotsky, 1978), and sociohistorical theory (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003), provides a standpoint
that views how institutional systems (i.e., schools) influence and are influenced by individuals
living in social and cultural contexts (i.e., families) (Lewis et al., 2007). A sociocultural per-
spective to the concept of learning disabilities is aligned with a social model of disabilities.
This model is perceived as affecting “an individual, but is a reflection of how society regards
and facilitates or impedes interactions among people with all kinds of bodies, minds, and
affects” (Baglieri, 2017, p. 8). Although a social model of disabilities challenges a medical
model that privileges the processes of diagnosis and intervention, sociocultural perspectives
provide additional frames to defining the concept of learning disabilities. For instance, a
sociocultural perspective challenges the actual concept of learning disabilities and views it as
an artifact of how the notion of ability and difference has been constructed through school-
based instructional structures and practices via mediating factors, such as language (Ball, 2012).
A sociocultural perspective suggests that institutional practices and language potentially
construct not only learning disabilities but also how families define and perceive the term.
The study of written discourses refers to languaging as socially mediated actions that construct
one’s self-in-practice or how one uses discourses to convey and communicate meaning
(Pennycook, 2010). The concept of languaging shifts the emphasis from the study of linguis-
tically isolated forms of language to the act of doing language. In the context of this study,
languaging is viewed as mediating how families make sense of themselves and their experiences
as connected with the concept of learning disabilities. At the same time, the language of learn-
ing disabilities, such as at risk, below expectations, and failing, compartmentalize individuals
into categories that index what it means to be successful or not (Wortham, 2006). Therefore,
families may acquire these discourses and use them, or various forms of them, as they partic-
ipate in educational and social practices.
A number of studies have highlighted how educational institutions ground the construct
of disabilities within its structures through the special education system (McDermott, 1996;
4 B. KABUTO

Taylor, 1991). Arguing that disabilities are not necessarily the result of individual cognitive
deficits or a lack of ability, other researchers contend that disabilities can be a “pedagogic
making” (Flurkey, 1997; Martin, 2014, p. 6). Recent moves in education to standardize both
curricula and assessment perpetuate the notion of what it means to be an average or grade
level student. Research has shown that attempts at standardization is a racialized, gendered,
and unequal practice and has a built-in discriminatory system for those classified with dis-
abilities (Ball, 2012; Wortham, 2006). Other researchers have argued that unclear eligibility
criteria are at the root of socially constructing learning disabilities, as unclear criteria can
misidentify children (Vellutino et al., 2004).
Families, in turn, may experience conflicts in how they understand and experience their
own and one another’s perceived learning disabilities, which may align with or challenge those
of educational professionals. Studying families with children who have been identified with
learning disabilities, Lalvani (2015) compared the perspectives of teachers and parents on
their understandings of what it means to have a disability. While educators tended to situate
their understandings within a medical, cognitive paradigm, parents tended to explain their
perspectives through a sociocultural paradigm, discussing the impacts of learning disabilities
through social factors, such as stigmatization and otherness. Similarly, Kabuto (2016), who
studied families that included both parents and children with determined learning disabilities,
illustrated how these disabilities can be socially constructed within the family structure as
parents interpret learning behaviors through the standpoint of past experiences. By doing so,
family members searched out “signs” of disabilities while simultaneously devaluing other data
that provide a valued-oriented perspective to learning. Consequently, parents may have con-
tradictory responses when attempting to understand and plan for their children’s perceived
learning difficulties when working with professionals (Rogers, 2007).
Using a sociocultural perspective, this research investigates parental perceptions of learning
disabilities through language, analyzed through discourse analysis, to gain a better under-
standing of how families understand the concept of learning disabilities. Furthermore, families’
perceptions may differ based on who in the family has been identified with learning disabilities.
If this is the case, such differences may be reflected in the content of the discourses across
family types.

Methodology
The research presented here is built on a survey study conducted nationally in the United
States. The study included 304 surveys composed of multiple choice items, Likert scale items,
and five open ended questions. Respondents had to meet one of the following criteria: they
were (1) a part of a family in which at least one parent was determined to have a disability
(Parent-Only group); (2) a part of a family in which one or both parents and the children were
determined to have disabilities (Parent-Child group); or (3) a part of a family in which at least
one child was determined to have a disability (Child-Only group). Table 1 provides the demo-
graphic data for the three subgroups. The respondents represented 49 states in the US.
In line with Institutional Review Board guidelines, respondents were able to voluntarily
decline to answer any of the questions, including the open-ended items, when completing the
survey. Therefore, out of the 304 participants, 242 participants provided written responses to
 The Educational Forum 5

Table 1. Demographic information about study participants.

Parent-only Child-only Parent-child
group (n = 76) (n = 128) group (n = 38)
Average Range
  25–34 years old 59% 35% 50%
  35–44 years old 27% 43% 26%
  45–54 years old 13% 19% 19%
  55–63 years old 1% 3% 5%
Yearly income
  Less than $25,000 18% 20% 11%
  $25,000– $50,000 25% 34% 32%
  $50,000–$75,000 22% 20% 26%
  $75,000–$100,000 22% 14% 18%
  Over $100,000 12% 12% 13%
Parent/Guardian Education Level
 Did not complete high school 5% 2% 11%
 Completed high school with a diploma or GED 45% 51% 32%
 Completed college with an undergraduate degree 38% 37% 55%
 Completed graduate school with a Master’s degree 9% 7% 7%
 Complete graduate school with a Ph.D, M.D, D.D.S, J.D, 3% 3% 0%
or another doctoral level degree
Parent Reading Achievement
  Successful reader 34% 59% 26%
 Average reader 33% 25% 26%
  Struggling reader 33% 16% 48%
Classified in school
 Yes 46% – *63%
 No 54% – *34%
Time of Parent Classification
 Pre-K-2nd grades 41% – 41%
 3rd-5th grades 24% – 35%
 6th grade or higher 22% – 16%
 Not applicable 13% – 8%
Time of Child Classification
 Pre-K-2nd grades – 74% 84%
 3rd-5th grades – 26% 16%
 6th grade or higher – 0% 0%
 Not applicable – – –
Child Reading Achievement
  Below grade level – 49% *42%
 At grade level – 28% *34%
 Above grade level – 20% *11%
 Not sure – 3% *11%
Note: In line with Institutional Review Board guidelines, participants could refrain from answering questions.
One participant in the Parent-Child Group did not answer all the questions and, therefore, the percentages
with an * designate a missing response and percentages that do not add up to 100% due to decimal rounding.

the open-ended questions. For the purposes of this article manuscript, data and findings from
the open-ended responses that compare the three groups of families are presented.

Survey Instrument
This survey was conducted nationally in the United States through an Internet-based survey
platform. The survey consisted of 21 multiple choice questions that collected demographic
information (e.g., age and grade of child, income, education level, languages spoken in the
home, and type of special education services) and 49 Likert scale items (i.e., strongly agree,
agree, disagree, strongly disagree, neither disagree nor agree, and not applicable). Sixteen
Likert scale statements aimed at the parents’ perceptions of themselves as learners (e.g., I like
6 B. KABUTO

to read; I avoid difficult reading material; being classified in school helped me to become
successful in school; and I can relate to my children’s experiences in being identified with a
disability). The remaining 33 Likert scale statements aimed at ascertaining parents’ perceptions
of their children’s experiences with special education (e.g., I feel confident in the school’s ability
in implementing my child’s individual educational plan; I feel confident that my child’s clas-
sification is accurate; and receiving services will help my child to excel in school) and parent’s
beliefs of reading in the home, which consisted of items taken from The Parental Reading
Belief Inventory devised by DeBaryshe and Binder (1994). Finally, the survey consisted of five
open-ended questions listed below.

1. How would you describe yourself as a reader in school? What were your best memories
of reading in school? What were your worst memories?
2. If your child struggles in school, do you find it difficult to relate to your child’s struggles?
Why or why not?
3. What are the benefits of being identified with a disability?
4. What are the drawbacks of being identified with a disability?
5. What impacts (positive and/or negative) has having a child classified in school as having
a disability had on the family?

These five questions evolved out of a longitudinal, qualitative study Revaluing readers and
families that focused on comparative case studies of seven families (Kabuto, 2015). The open-
ended questions were based on themes from the parental discourses within the comparative
case studies. This survey study was employed as a follow-up study to explore whether themes
from the longitudinal, qualitative study were present in a larger population of families across
the United States.

Data Analysis
The written responses to the five questions were analyzed through discourse analysis proce-
dures. Discourse analysis is a general set of procedures used to analyze the written or spoken
language-in-use at the level of the utterance. Researchers have used discourse analysis for
interviews, in combination with sociocultural theory, to examine how language use is reflective
of social practices (Compton-Lilly, 2015; Rogers, 2004). Adding a critical component to dis-
course analysis, Rogers (2004), for instance, studied the intersection of family and school
structures and the literacy practices of an adult learner who went through the special education
system to discuss the shifting identities of marginalized learners. While Rogers studied dis-
course as a critical, situated activity, Compton-Lilly (2015) examined the temporal nature of
discourse. Of interest to the present study, temporal discourse analysis describes how indi-
viduals situate themselves across time as they tell their past learning histories. By using tem-
poral discourse analysis, Compton-Lilly (2017) explained how certain motifs, such as special
education, the construction of success/failure, and notions of ability/normalcy, reoccur within
an individual’s discourse over time.
The discourse analysis procedure was influenced by the works of Gee (1996) and Compton-
Lilly (2015) to study the forms (utterance type) and functions (meanings) of discourse and
how reflections of one’s learning history are evidenced within one’s discourse. This analysis
 The Educational Forum 7

consisted of three parts. The first part involved a cross-case analysis. For this analysis, the
responses of the three subgroups were analyzed together. This process followed an inductive
approach consisting of denoting and connoting (Thomas, 2006). Denoting data entails break-
ing down the responses into text segments or utterances. After the text was broken down into
codable segments, they were coded based on discourse forms (e.g., subject of utterance, past/
present verb forms, verb types) and meaning, or general concept codes. Then, the concept
codes were linked together to form thematic codes through the process of connoting. This
process required multiple readings of the written data so that the codes could be collapsed
and combined into similar code sets. Table 2 provides an example of the utterance coding
based on discourse forms and functions. Table 3 presents the thematic codes, concept codes,
and examples of the data.
Once the data were coded into thematic and concept codes, a within-case analysis was
conducted by treating each subgroup as an individual case. For the within-case analysis, the
thematic and concept codes were sorted for each subgroup. The thematic codes for each case
were analyzed in order to develop in-depth explanations of parental understandings of what
it means to be identified with a learning disability within the family.
Finally, the cases were analyzed again through a cross-case analysis, whereby the concept
and thematic codes were compared across the three subgroups through cross-tabulations. The
cross-case analysis allowed for the development of multiple comparison subgroups in order
to investigate similarities and differences across the subgroups. Of particular focus was how
the three subgroups used discourses in different and similar ways to construct understandings
of the concept of a learning disability.

Findings
Following, I present the major themes from the parents’ written responses. Focusing on the
cross-case analysis, the findings compare how parents in the three subgroups talked about
their family’s experiences and perceptions in connection to the concept of learning
disabilities.

Having a Disability as Receiving Educational Services through Classification

Parents in the three subgroups focused on receiving additional educational assistance or ser-
vices as a necessary outcome of being determined to have a disability. The respondents

Table 2. Discourse analysis sample text.

Denotation of written text
in segments Form Meaning Concept code
As a parent of a child with Dependent clause as Parent-child connection as Cannot Relate: Parents
severe learning fronting the context of context ability to relate or
disabilities the independent clause connect to their
I found it extremely First person-subject Parent of a child with children’s experiences in
frustrating to deal with. Past tense learning disabilities regards to the concept of
Negative affective Past actions learning disabilities
Learning disability
connected to affect
Verb phrase Necessitates past actions
8 B. KABUTO

Table 3.  Thematic codes, concept codes, and data examples.

Thematic codes Concept codes Examples
Ability to relate Cannot relate As a parent of a child with severe learning
disabilities, I found it extremely frustrating to
deal with.
Can relate I can relate to my daughter’s reading difficulties
because of my own.
Educational services Educational assistance The benefits of having the disability identified is
getting the help you need.
Positive interactions with school I was lucky and went to a school that was very
accommodating.
Understanding differences The benefits are realizing that you’re not just
stupid or lazy.
Family assistance We all work together to help him as much as we
can; both in the classroom and at home.
Otherness and marginalization Conformity [My child is] still being held to the same standard
and expectations.
Being labeled People label you.
Misunderstanding of behaviors I feel as if my label was wrong.
Negative interactions with school Many public schools do the bare minimum in my
opinion.
Negative perceptions by others People look at you as lower than them.
Negative self-perception I felt like I was just dumb.
Exclusion When it came to school subjects such as math
and reading, I wasn’t included with my
‘regular’ class.
Unchallenged The teachers tend not to challenge her.
Low self-esteem The child’s self-esteem is low.

repeatedly referred to receiving educational services as “getting help,” often through the process
of classification.

Parent-Child Group
Parents in the Parent-Child and Child-Only groups described how their children could get
“individualized help” or “help with specific issues.” Many parents felt that having their children
classified was the main course of action for them to receive additional assistance in school.
One parent noted that being classified “pushes schools to make necessary and reasonable
accommodations for the students’ with disabilities.”
Unlike the other two groups, parents in the Parent-Child group tended to articulate more
conflicting views when discussing educational assistance as a benefit. A parent, for instance,
felt that educational assistance was an illusion because “everyone still teaches the same mate-
rial.” The respondent continued by explaining, “I just think that teachers do it more one-on-one
with special needs children versus normal classroom kids.” Similarly, another parent described
having a disability as “not much except you get the additional classroom help.” Echoing similar
sentiments, another parent said, “You get extra help if you need it, but there is no ‘benefit’ to
having a disability.” These last comments highlight how parents in this group felt that educa-
tional assistance in school was needed for their children academically, while concurrently
discussing “social stigmas” of being classified.

Child-Only Group
Parents in the Child-Only group, however, tended to use discourses reflective of a medical
paradigm in which their children needed to overcome a condition, and educational assistance
 The Educational Forum 9

became a benefit for their children. For parents in this group, as well as for parents in the
Parent-Only group, the notion of receiving assistance was necessary for them to “overcome
the disability” and to “meet the needs” of their children. A parent illustrated this point by
saying, “I feel it [being identified with a disability] benefits students as well as the parents
because plans can be put in place to assist the student and help them to overcome their dis-
ability and be able to help others.” The idea of “overcoming a learning disability” as some type
of condition resonated with the parents in this group as another parent stated, “The benefits
of having the disability identified is getting the help you need. If the school and teachers know
the issues, then they know there are steps to take and challenges to overcome with your child.”
Continuing with the idea of diagnosis and treatment, once the condition has been identified,
then children can receive interventions, as this parent explained, “With his [their child’s]
disability identified, we have been able to work on a learning plan better suited for him, and
he has shown improvement.”
These comments highlight a theme that dominated only in the Child-Only group. Parents
in this group felt that the process of classification “taught” them about their children. Unable
to understand or relate to their children, parents felt that they could learn how to help their
children through classification and obtaining the requisite services. Consequently, the parents
felt not only that their children could receive additional assistance in school but also that that
they could better assist their children in the home. To reiterate this point, one parent stated,
“You are able to get the help that is needed in school, and it helps me as a parent to know where
I need to focus more time.”

Parent-Only Group
Referencing their educational struggles in school, parents in this group felt that receiving
educational assistance was necessary for them to overcome what they saw as their difficulties.
Similar to the Child-Only group, this group of parents positioned learning disabilities as a
condition as they discussed the process of “discovery.” The consequence was, as one parent
said, “I finally got help.” Parents referenced specific services and accommodations, such as
small groups, one-on-one instruction, and extra time to complete tests or assignments, that
they felt were beneficial to them. A parent stated, “One major benefit was getting extra help
in a small group setting in the resource room. That was how I managed to make it.” Within
this group, there were parents who stated that they were identified with learning disabilities
outside of school or later in life. These parents, in particular, felt a certain level of regret at not
being classified earlier in order to receive assistance in school. A parent who fell into this
category stated, “If it had been discovered sooner that I had a disability, I would not have
struggled as much.”
Parents in the Parent-Only group discussed how being identified helped them to find ways
to compensate for what they saw as their disability as a condition. Parents discussed formu-
lating a “game plan.” By having information about their disability, they felt that they could
“learn how to manage it” by finding individual accommodations. These “tools and tricks,” as
one parent noted, included listening to books on tape, findings ways to stay on task, asking
for help from others, and/or taking “extra precautions” in the work setting when asked to read
or write. Unlike the other two groups, there was a sense that those identified need to help
themselves. As one participant explained, “I feel there is little anyone can do to help with a
disability except the person who has it.”
10 B. KABUTO

Being Classified as Being Labeled

The three parent subgroups used discourses that reflected otherness and marginalization
connected to the process of “labelling” within educational institutions. As one parent noted,
“People label you, and you are identified as one of ‘those kids.”’This quote resonates with a
dominant theme within the parental discourses across the subgroups. Parents focused on their
belief that having a disability led to classification that positioned them or their children as the
‘social other’ that worked in contrast to the “normals.”

Parent-Child Group
Parents in the Parent-Child group talked more frequently about the external factors that
developed or perpetuated the social stigmas of being classified. Parents described how they
or their children received negative treatment from other children or educational personnel.
They stated that they were picked on by their peers, made fun of, or thought of as “dumb.” As
one parent noted, “because I had a learning problem, my peers made fun of me because I was
in a LD [learning disability] classroom only part time. I had no friends. I was treated differently,
just because I learned in a different way.” Consequently, parents connected being classified to
stereotypes that positioned themselves and their children as not intelligent or less socially able
than other children, supporting the notion of the construction of otherness for children who
are classified.
As parents discussed these negative experiences, they tended to relate to or interpret their
children’s experiences through their own. For instance, one parent explained, “others think
you’re dumb, or teachers not recognizing my troubles with paying attention, and simply pun-
ishing me.” The parent went on to connect to their eight-year-old’s experiences with ADD, “I
know how he feels, and punishing or forcing isn’t the answer.”
This parent’s comment is reflective of the contradictory discourses of this particular group
of parents as the discussed both their negative social perceptions to classification and receiving
educational support. Within this storyline, there was dissonance between actions and beliefs,
as exemplified in the following,
(My) worst memories are being picked on a lot because I wasn’t as popular and had issues with
socializing. I don’t find it difficult [to relate to my children] because I was there once and I have
learned from my mistakes and I can help them. I wasn’t sure if I wanted my children “labeled” or
not, but getting help has been a lifesaver.

Because this parent was not classified within school until after she was 11-years-old, she
felt that early identification was beneficial to her children’s success and her family’s well-being,
in spite of the fact that she struggled with the overall notion of classification as being “labelled.”

Child-Only Group
Similar to the Parent-Child group, parents in the Child-Only group discussed the social stigmas
of classification and used discourses that reified the notion that classification is the otherness
in relation to what is “normal.” In fact, several parents used the term “normals” to describe
children who were not classified. A parent described the social stigmas placed on her son,
Being excluded from a regular classroom, away from “normal” peers, my son is losing out on social
time as well as an opportunity for both he and the “normal” to get to know each other. The normals
would love my son if they had the chance to meet him.
 The Educational Forum 11

As this comment illustrates, parents in this group held the belief that a lack of understanding
caused and perpetuated a social stigma connected to the classification of learning disabilities.
As another parent argued, “The worst part [of classification] is the ignorance on the part of
neurotypicals.”
When compared to the Parent-Child group, parents in this group talked about the chal-
lenges of relating to their children’s struggles. In fact, parents who were successful students
and readers in school had the most difficulty relating to their children, especially if their
children were struggling readers. As one parent described:
As a parent of a child with severe learning disabilities, I found it extremely frustrating to deal with.
It is rather difficult to deal with and accept even though, intellectually, you understand human
development, biology, physiology and so forth. I had to spend a great deal of time de-stressing.

This group of parents talked about the adjustments they needed to make in order to support
their children, citing a lack of shared experiences in struggling educationally.
Whether they could relate or not, this group of parents discussed the need to “fight” for
their children to receive services. While the majority of parents were satisfied with how the
school addressed their children’s needs, other parents thought that if they did not advocate
for their children, their children would not receive the resources they needed. One parent
expressed concern that when their child started to show improvement, the school stopped
providing accommodations.

Parent-Only Group
Parents in the Parent-Only group focused on the personal impacts that classification had on
them socially and educationally. Unlike the other two groups, parents in this group focused
on how classification negatively impacted their self-esteem, created negative self-perceptions,
and developed an educational context in which they were unchallenged. Parents in this group
talked about not feeling “normal” or feeling “stupid.” One parent described, “the drawback
that I dealt with was knowing that I was somehow different—hence I went to a special class—
which made me feel like I must be stupider than the other kids.” These personal factors had
an impact on their interaction with their children, who were not classified. Parents discussed
how they were unable to assist their children with reading or depended on their spouse to
help them and their children with reading.
Contributing to these parents’ negative self-esteem and self-perceptions was the fact that
they felt discouraged or unchallenged in school. While they felt that they did receive assistance,
they also suggested that they received the “bare minimum” in school. In addition, being placed
in classes outside of the “regular” class made them feel “inferior” to other students. One parent
described her experience,
The drawback is that my peers looked down on me. I was called stupid and that I got all my answers
from the teachers on tests. When it came to school subjects such as math and reading, I wasn’t
included with my “regular” class and spent most of my time in a “special education class.”

Other parents expressed a cynical perspective toward the special education system. For
instance, a parent noted,
I learned how to work the system and get by. Those are important skills; we all learn and use these
abilities in the work environment. I learned to laugh and shake my head at problems out of my
control.
12 B. KABUTO

Discussion
The purpose of this study is to explore parental perceptions of learning disabilities as defined
through a sociocultural perspective, as well as how these perceptions differ based on who in
the family was identified with learning disabilities. The findings from this study illustrate how
parents articulated their perceptions of their and/or their children’s perceived learning dis-
abilities by drawing upon elements from a sociocultural perspective.
First, the cross-case analysis showed that parents across the three subgroups associated the
concept of a learning disability at the intersection of medical, educational, and family struc-
tures. Situating the concept of learning disabilities within medical and educational contexts,
the parents considered identification and classification, in which their children could receive
educational services, as synonymous. The parents described the processes of identification
and classification through labeling, which resulted in what the parents felt as marginalized
identities of themselves and their children as learners.
For the parents in this study, their perceptions of learning disabilities could not be separated
from classification into particular categories of disabilities so that they or their children could
receive services in school. Classifying meant that their children needed to be separated into
categorical conditions that fed into the dichotomy of otherness and normalcy, or, as several
of the parents in the study stated, their children were labeled. Labeling, then, carried negative
perceptions attached to stigmatization. In other words, labeling was a process of socially
constructing negative learning identities and perceptions of ability.
Therefore, how parents perceived the concept of learning disabilities worked in close con-
junction with educational planning. Parental perceptions of their and their children’s disabil-
ities were situated in how they participated in the special education system. For parents in the
Child-Only group, a reoccurring theme was how their participation in determining and devel-
oping educational plans for their children educated them about their children’s struggles. It
was through these educational structures that some parents reported that they could validate
the sense that “something was wrong.” Classification, for these parents, provided an answer
to their children’s educational struggles within an institutional structure that created a socially
unequal parallel system of education (Baglieri, 2017). The parents looked for answers with
little understanding of the how the system and its internal structures framed learning or ability.
Consequently, as the parents in the Parent-Only group illustrated, participating in the special
education system produced long-term impacts in which negative self-perceptions caused par-
ents to position themselves as the ‘other’ into adulthood.
Second, a sociocultural perspective of the concept of learning disabilities frames how lan-
guage mediates our understanding of experiences. The findings illustrate that parents used
formal special education and medical discourses, such as diagnosis and intervention, to discuss
their perceptions, as well as conversational discourses to talk about themselves as marginalized
individuals, such as feeling stupid or unchallenged academically. Using discourses of margin-
alization, parents tended to define the concept of learning disabilities as a condition that
needed educational intervention, which aligns with research arguing that the notion of learning
disabilities is framed by a deficit-oriented medical model of disabilities (Conrad, 2008; Lalvani,
2015; Sauer & Lalvani, 2017).
By describing the social stigma placed on those who are classified, the parents talked in a
manner in which they tried to counter the label. These challenges were not contingent upon
the idea that they believed that they or their children struggled with learning. Rather, it was
 The Educational Forum 13

because they were in disagreement with how the label encompassed who they or their children
are as individuals living in the complex social and cultural environment of schooling, where
they felt that instruction, curriculum, and personnel did not always serve them. A number of
studies support these findings. In particular, Lalvani (2015) found that parents sought to avoid
classification because of how disabilities were interpreted by educational professionals.
Although Lalvani (2015) focused on parents’ interpretations of their children, this study adds
that parents determined to have disabilities reported the feeling of lower standards in schools
and the belief they were not challenged. These parents talked about “working the system” and
“getting by.”
This study adds to scant research examining the intersection of families and learning dis-
abilities by focusing not only on families with children with disabilities—it also examines
families in which the learning disabilities are perceived across parental and child generations.
This study illustrates differences in the discourses around disability based on who in the family
was determined to have a disability. While parents across the three subgroups talked about
learning disabilities through otherness and marginalization, parents in the Parent-Child group
talked less about these concepts and discussed how they could relate to their children’s expe-
riences. This finding is supported by and extends other research suggesting a shared frame of
reference, or experiences, between parents and children when children discussed their parents’
perceived learning disabilities (e.g., Booth & Booth, 2000). As Kabuto (2016) found, parents
who were identified as having disabilities tended to minimize concepts of otherness and
marginalization as they connected parent and child experiences in learning activities, such as
reading, in school.
Parents in the Child-Only group, however, were less likely to relate to their children com-
pared with those in the Parent-Child group. While parents in the Parent-Child group articu-
lated shared experiences that they had with their children to interpret their children’s academic
behaviors, those in the Child-Only group depended on educational planning and the process
of classification. In either case, participation in their children’s education was the access point
for developing shared knowledge and cultural understanding. For some parents, learning how
to participate in the special education system developed perceptions of their children that
they did not previously possess. Similar to the findings in other studies (Dyson, 2010), other
parents expressed frustration at working with their children both in school and at home.
Finally, by studying the parental perceptions of learning disabilities across parent and child
generations, the findings of this study illustrate the long-term social impacts that perpetuate
deficit-oriented discourses toward learning and ability. Classification did not end when the
parents were possibly declassified or graduated from high school or college; rather, it persisted
throughout their lifetime. There were times when they used their experiences and perceptions
of themselves as a labeled individual to make sense of their children’s experiences. The Parent-
Only group, in particular, discussed notions of social isolation, being perceived as cognitively
less able than others, and taking control of one’s learning, in addition to ideas of social stigma
and marginalization.

Limitations
There are limitations to this study. First, the surveys depended on self-reported data. While
a large data set for the discourse analysis was obtained, the data was unable to be triangulated
14 B. KABUTO

with other sources to check the authenticity of the responses to the survey questions. Although
the inability to triangulate the data can be seen as a limitation, using self-reported data provides
a glimpse into the parents’ version of reality—their personal, subjective point-of-view—as
they briefly ‘storied’ their understandings of their family’s experiences with learning disabilities.
Second, the discourse analysis in this study has a qualitative nature to it and, consequently,
the findings are not generalizable to all families who have members determined to have learn-
ing disabilities. However, as Miles et  al. (2013) argued, cross-case analyses do allow for
enhanced generalizability across the cases being studied. Finally, while this study examined
how parents responded to questions that targeted their perceptions of learning disabilities, it
was not the aim or within the scope of this study to deconstruct the classification process that
may have led to the families acquiring and taking up the concept of learning disabilities.

Conclusions
Researchers have argued that there is a master narrative on disabilities that focuses on deficit
models of ability and learning or on dichotomization of those who can and those who cannot
learn (Fisher & Goodley, 2007; Goodley & Tregaskis, 2006). As researchers argue, this master
narrative can generate negative perceptions of families with children (Rogers, 2007) and par-
ents determined to have disabilities (Hewitt & Clarke, 2016). This study supports this body
of research to suggest that narratives around disabilities do not merely classify students—they
also ‘disable families’ (Rogers, 2007).
MacLeod et al. (2017) suggested that educational professionals often hold a negative view
of disability and families and argued for improved family-school partnerships that can inter-
rupt this deficit oriented master narrative. Findings from this study illustrate the varying views
that families have on their schools’ participation on behalf of their children’s education. Because
parents felt that receiving educational accommodations was a benefit and became a driving
force for some parents to classify their children, further exploration into the parent and school
dynamics within the classification process is needed.
Another area of further research is the idea of self-identification of having disabilities. There
is evidence from this study that parents self-identified as having a disability. These parents
noted that they were not identified in any particular setting. Because this study focused on
the perceptions of the families in this study, parents who self-identified with a disability were
included in the Parent-Child group. This group of parents may provide more insight into the
socially and culturally driven nature of disabilities, as parents may have drawn upon resources
to search out signs of disabilities for themselves and their children.
Finally, researchers have acknowledged the over-identification and increase in individuals
into special education (Conrad, 2008; Vellutino et al., 2004). In spite of this, there is little
large-scaled research that follows individuals determined to have learning disabilities into
adulthood as they become parents. As exemplified in the works of McDermott (1996) and
Taylor (1991), research has focused on particular moments during the identification and
classification process, with little attention to the long term cognitive, social, and cultural
impacts. More attention needs to be placed on how family members who have been identified
impact how families and educational professionals understand the concept of learning dis-
abilities, which may influence educational planning that have repercussions for their children
for a lifetime.
 The Educational Forum 15

References
Baglieri, S. (2017). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical practices for embracing diversi-
ty in education. Taylor & Francis.
Ball, S. (2012). Foucault, power, and education. Routledge.
Booth, T., & Booth, W. (2000). Against the odds: Growing up with parents who have learning difficul-
ties. Mental Retardation, 38(1), 1–14. doi:10.1352/00476765(2000)038 < 0001:ATOGUW>2.0.CO;2
Compton-Lilly, C. (2015). Revisiting children and families: Temporal discourse analysis and the longi-
tudinal construction of meaning. In J. Sefton-Green & J. Rowsell, (Eds.). Learning and literacy over
time: Longitudinal perspectives (pp. 61–78). Routledge.
Compton-Lilly, C. (2017). Reading students’ lives: Literacy learning across time. Routledge.
Conrad, P. (2008). The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treat-
able disorders. Johns Hopkins University Press. doi:10.1086/ahr/52.4.744
DeBaryshe, B. D., & Binder, J. C. (1994). Development of an instrument for measuring parental beliefs
about reading aloud to young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78(3_suppl), 1303–1311.
doi:10.2466/pms.1994.78.3c.1303
Dyson, L. (2010). Unanticipated effective of children with learning disabilities on their families.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 43–55. doi:10.1177/073194871003300104
Eden, S., Romi, S., & Braun Aviyashar, E. (2017). Being a parent’s eyes and ears: Emotional literacy and
empathy of children whose parents have a sensory disability. Journal of Research in Special
Educational Needs, 17(4), 257–264. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12383
Fisher, P., & Goodley, D. (2007). The linear medical model of disability: Mothers of disabled babies
resist with counter-narratives. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(1), 66–81. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.
2007.00518.x
Flurkey, A. (1997). Inventing learning disabilities. In D. Taylor, D. Coughlin, & J. Marasco (Eds.),
Teaching and advocacy (pp. 211–232). Stenhouse.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology and discourse (2nd ed.). Routledge- Falmer.
Goodley, D., & Tregaskis, C. (2006). Storying disability and impairment: Retrospective accounts of
disabled family life. Qualitative Health Research, 16(5), 630–636. doi:10.1177/1049732305285840
Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits of repertoires of practice.
Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X032005019
Haley, K., Allsopp, D., & Hoppey, D. (2018). When a parent of a student with a learning disability is also
an educator in the same school district: A heuristic case study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(1),
19–31. doi:10.1177/0731948717690114
Hewitt, O., & Clarke, A. (2016). A qualitative investigation into the experiences of having a parent with
a learning disability. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 292–300. doi:10.1111/bld.12163
Kabuto, B. (2015). Transgenerational learning within families. Journal of Family Diversity in Education,
1(4), 45–65. http://familydiversityeducation.com/index.php/fdec/article/view/51
Kabuto, B. (2016). The social construction of a reading (dis)ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(3),
289–304. doi:10.1002/rrq.135
Lalvani, P. (2015). Disability, stigma and otherness: Perspectives of parents and teachers. International
Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 62(4), 379–393. doi:10.1080/1034912X.
2015.1029877
Lalvani, P., & Polvere, L. (2013). Historical perspectives on studying families of children with disabilities:
A case for critical research. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 1–16. doi:10.18061/dsq.v33i3.3209
Lewis, C., & Enciso, P., & Moje, E. B. (Eds). (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity,
agency, and power. Routledge.
MacLeod, K., Causton, J. N., Radel, M., & Radel, P. (2017). Rethinking the Individualized Education
Plan process: voices from the other side of the table. Disability & Society, 32(3), 381–400.
doi:10.1080/09687599.2017.1294048
Martin, D. (2014). Introduction. In D. Martin (Ed.), Researching dyslexia in multilingual settings
(pp. 1–17). Multilingual Matters.
16 B. KABUTO

McDermott, R. (1996). Acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.),
Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 269–305). Cambridge University
Press.
Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as local practice. Routledge.
Rivera Drew, J. A. (2009). Disability and the self-reliant family: Revisiting the literature on parents with
disabilities. Marriage & Family Review, 45(5), 431–447. doi:10.1080/01494920903048734
Rogers, C. (2007). Disabling a family? Emotional dilemmas experienced in becoming a parent of a
child with learning disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 136–143.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8578.2007.00469.x
Rogers, R. (2004). A critical discourse analysis of literate identities across contexts: Alignment and
conflict. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 51–78). Routledge.
Sauer, J., & Lalvani, P. (2017). From advocacy to activism: Families, communities, and collective
change. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 14(1), 51–58. doi:10.1111/jppi.12219
Taylor, D. (1991). Learning denied. Heinemann.
Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American
Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748
Tomlinson, S. (2012). A sociology of special education. Routledge.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identi-
fying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–409.
doi:10.1177/001440290306900401
Vellutino, F., Fletcher, J., Snowling, M., & Scanlon, D. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia):
What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1),
2–40. doi:10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Wortham, S. (2006). Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and academic learning.
Cambridge University Press.
Zivoder, I., Martic-Biocina, S., Miklecic, J., & Kozina, G. (2017). Attitudes and knowledge of parents of
preschool children about specific learning disabilities. Psychiatria Danubina, 29(Suppl 3), 571–574.