DLD Is a Language-Based Learning Disability

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is often misunderstood in educational settings because it is frequently conceptualized too narrowly as a “speech” or oral-language impairment. This framing is incomplete and clinically problematic. DLD affects the language systems students use to understand instruction, comprehend text, formulate ideas, organize written expression, participate in academic discourse, and access curriculum. In her 2026 article, Rethinking Developmental Language Disorder: A Case for Recognizing Developmental Language Disorder as a Language-Based Learning Disability, Kristin Kirkley presents a timely and clinically significant argument: when DLD affects reading comprehension, written expression, academic learning, and classroom functioning, it should be recognized as a language-based learning disability rather than treated as a limited speech-language concern.

This distinction matters because DLD is common, underidentified, and educationally consequential. Research indicates that DLD affects approximately 7% to 8% of children, yet many students with DLD are never appropriately identified for school-based services (Bishop & McDonald, 2009; Norbury et al., 2016; Tomblin et al., 1997). This is not a minor labeling issue. DLD affects phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, discourse, and pragmatics. These linguistic domains support the skills students need for listening comprehension, reading comprehension, written expression, reasoning, vocabulary learning, narrative organization, and classroom participation (Bishop et al., 2016; Kirkley, 2026).

One reason DLD is missed is that it is often hidden beneath superficially adequate conversational language. Many students with DLD can participate in casual conversation, answer familiar questions, and appear socially engaged. However, conversational competence should not be mistaken for intact academic language. A student may appear verbally capable in everyday interaction but break down when required to infer, summarize, explain, compare, justify, interpret complex syntax, learn unfamiliar vocabulary, comprehend figurative language, or organize written responses. When these academic-language demands increase, the underlying language disorder becomes more visible. Unfortunately, these difficulties are often misattributed to attention, motivation, behavior, or weak effort rather than recognized as manifestations of a language disorder (Bishop et al., 2017; McGregor, 2020).

Kirkley’s article is particularly important because it challenges the artificial separation between “speech/language impairment” and “specific learning disability.” In many school systems, children with DLD are initially identified under the speech/language impairment category because early weaknesses are most visible in oral language. That classification may be appropriate for some students, but it can also be too restrictive. When a student’s language disorder affects reading comprehension, written expression, and access to curriculum, speech-language therapy alone may not adequately address the educational impact of the disability. These students may also require specially designed instruction and academic supports that address language-based learning needs.

DLD does not remain confined to spoken language. Its presentation changes as academic expectations change. In early childhood and the primary grades, a child may show difficulty with vocabulary, grammar, sentence formulation, comprehension of oral directions, or narrative language. As the student gets older, the same underlying disorder may present as poor reading comprehension, weak written expression, limited inferencing, difficulty learning from text, poor academic vocabulary, and reduced ability to organize complex ideas. This shift does not necessarily indicate the emergence of a new disability. It often reflects the academic manifestation of a persistent developmental language disorder.

This developmental pattern helps explain why some students appear to improve early, only to struggle more visibly later. Scarborough and Dobrich (1990) described “illusory recovery,” a period in which early language weaknesses may appear less obvious before later academic demands reveal persistent vulnerabilities. Once decoding becomes more automatic, reading comprehension depends increasingly on language comprehension (Catts et al., 2002; Gough & Tunmer, 1986). For students with DLD, this is frequently the point at which the academic consequences become more difficult for schools and families to ignore.

The legal and educational implications are substantial. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act definition of specific learning disability includes disorders involving the psychological processes used in understanding or using spoken or written language. The definition includes difficulties involving listening, thinking, speaking, reading, writing, spelling, and mathematical calculation. Kirkley notes that the older term “developmental aphasia” appears within the federal SLD definition and is conceptually connected to what is now understood as developmental language disorder (Kirkley, 2026). In practical terms, DLD is not outside the learning disability framework. When DLD affects academic functioning, it belongs within the discussion of language-based learning disability.

This raises an essential question for eligibility teams. If a comprehensive language evaluation identifies DLD, and the student’s language weaknesses directly interfere with reading comprehension, writing, and content learning, why would that not support consideration of SLD eligibility? Kirkley’s argument is clear: educational systems have often separated language disorders from learning disabilities in ways that are not aligned with the evidence. Sun and Wallach (2014) similarly argued that language disorders are learning disabilities when they interfere with school learning.

The dyslexia conversation also requires a broader framework. Dyslexia has appropriately received significant attention as a language-based learning disability because word-level reading weaknesses can severely limit academic progress. However, a dyslexia-only framework is insufficient. Dyslexia primarily affects word reading, decoding, spelling, and fluency through phonological processing weaknesses. DLD often affects language comprehension, including vocabulary, syntax, morphology, inferencing, narrative structure, discourse comprehension, and the ability to construct meaning from text (Catts et al., 2005; Kirkley, 2026).

This distinction is clinically critical. A student with DLD may decode accurately and read aloud fluently but still fail to understand what the text means. These students are sometimes described as “good readers” because they can read the words. That conclusion is incomplete. Accurate word reading is not equivalent to reading comprehension. The Simple View of Reading makes this distinction clear: reading comprehension depends on both word reading and language comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). If schools assess word reading but fail to assess language comprehension, they will continue to miss many students with DLD.

MTSS implementation can further contribute to underidentification when screening and intervention focus too heavily on decoding. MTSS is intended to provide early, systematic, and data-driven intervention. The concern is not the MTSS framework itself, but rather the limited range of skills many systems screen and monitor. Many school-based screening systems emphasize phonological awareness, rapid naming, decoding, and early word-reading skills. These are important skills, but they do not adequately measure vocabulary, grammar, morphology, inferencing, narrative language, or discourse comprehension. As a result, students with DLD who decode adequately may pass early literacy screeners and remain in Tier 1, despite clear risk for later reading comprehension and written-language difficulties.

This has serious consequences. Students may receive months or years of intervention targeting skills they already possess while their actual language-based needs remain unaddressed. Kirkley cites research indicating that students with DLD and intact decoding are among the students most likely to be missed by referral and screening systems (Hendricks et al., 2019). Bao et al. (2024) similarly found that many screening tools overlook language comprehension risk because they rely heavily on early reading measures rather than direct measures of oral and written language comprehension.

This is precisely why speech-language pathologists must be actively involved in MTSS, literacy planning, and eligibility decision making. SLPs are among the professionals best trained to identify language comprehension weaknesses, yet they are frequently underutilized in schoolwide screening, prevention, and academic intervention systems. When SLPs are not included, schools may overemphasize decoding and underrecognize the role of oral language as a foundation for reading comprehension, written expression, and content-area learning.

Assessment practices also require significant refinement. Traditional language evaluations may fail students with DLD when they rely too heavily on isolated standardized scores, oral-only testing, or measures with limited diagnostic accuracy. A student may not fall below a cutoff on every subtest and may still demonstrate a clear and functionally significant language disorder across academic tasks. For this reason, Kirkley argues for comprehensive, multidimensional assessment rather than eligibility decisions based on a single measure, isolated score, or narrow language sample.

A meaningful DLD evaluation should examine oral and written language together. Standardized measures with adequate psychometric properties are important, but they are not sufficient by themselves. Evaluation should also include curriculum-based tasks, language samples, narrative and discourse analysis, written language samples, dynamic assessment, and processing-dependent measures such as nonword repetition and sentence repetition. These methods provide converging evidence of how the student uses language to understand instruction, comprehend text, formulate ideas, organize written output, and participate in academic learning (Daub et al., 2021; Farquharson et al., 2021; Kirkley, 2026; Ward et al., 2024).

This is particularly important because DLD profiles are often uneven. One student may perform adequately on a vocabulary task but struggle significantly with sentence repetition, inferencing, narrative formulation, or written expression. Another student may decode accurately but fail to integrate information across a passage. Another may understand simple spoken language but break down with complex syntax, figurative language, abstract vocabulary, or curriculum-based discourse. A narrow test battery can easily miss these students. A comprehensive assessment can reveal the pattern of impairment across contexts and modalities.

Kirkley’s article is also important for multidisciplinary teams. Reading specialists, school psychologists, educational diagnosticians, teachers, and SLPs often assess different components of the student’s profile. However, if these findings are not integrated, the underlying language disorder can remain invisible. The educational evaluator may document reading comprehension or writing weaknesses. The SLP may document oral-language weaknesses. The psychologist may document attention or executive-function concerns. Unless the team synthesizes these findings, the student may receive fragmented labels, fragmented intervention, or no appropriate eligibility classification at all.

For parents, the message is straightforward. If a child can decode but does not understand what they read, “good reader” is not an adequate explanation. If a child speaks in conversation but cannot explain, summarize, infer, write, or learn from language-heavy instruction, “language is fine” is not an adequate conclusion. Academic language must be assessed directly.

For schools, the message is equally clear. Eligibility decisions should not separate oral language from literacy when a student’s difficulties cut across both. DLD can affect listening, speaking, reading comprehension, written expression, spelling, academic vocabulary, narrative organization, and content-area learning. When those academic effects are documented, DLD should be considered within the broader framework of language-based learning disability and SLD eligibility.

Kirkley’s article is valuable because it provides a research-based framework for naming what clinicians frequently observe: DLD is often the missing explanation behind persistent academic struggles. When schools fail to identify it, students may receive the wrong intervention, the wrong eligibility classification, or no services at all. When schools identify DLD accurately and assess it comprehensively, students are more likely to receive instruction and supports that match the source of their difficulty.

The bottom line is that DLD affects the language foundations of learning. It can interfere with reading comprehension, writing, classroom discourse, academic vocabulary, inferencing, and content-area achievement. When DLD has academic impact, it should be recognized as a language-based learning disability. That shift is not merely semantic. It changes how students are evaluated, how eligibility is considered, and what types of supports they can access.

References

1. Adlof, S. M., & Hogan, T. P. (2018). Understanding dyslexia in the context of developmental language disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(4), 762–773. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0049
2. Bao, X., Komesidou, R., & Hogan, T. P. (2024). A review of screeners to identify risk of developmental language disorder. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 33(3), 1548–1571. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00286
3. Bishop, D. V. M., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A., Greenhalgh, T., & CATALISE Consortium. (2016). CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study: Identifying language impairments in children. PLOS ONE, 11(7), Article e0158753. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158753
4. Bishop, D. V. M., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A., Greenhalgh, T., & CATALISE-2 Consortium. (2017). Phase 2 of CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(10), 1068–1080. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12721
5. Bishop, D. V. M., & McDonald, D. (2009). Identifying language impairment in children: Combining language test scores with parental report. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 44(5), 600–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820802259662
6. Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., Hogan, T. P., & Weismer, S. E. (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1378–1396. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/096)
7. Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45(6), 1142–1157. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2002/093)
8. Georgan, W. C., Archibald, L. M. D., & Hogan, T. P. (2023). Speech/language impairment or specific learning disability? Examining the usage of educational categories. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66(2), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-21-00636
9. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
10. Hendricks, A. E., Adlof, S. M., Alonzo, C. N., Fox, A. B., & Hogan, T. P. (2019). Identifying children at risk for developmental language disorder using a brief, whole-classroom screen. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(4), 896–908. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0093
11. Hogan, T. P., Farquharson, K., & McGregor, K. K. (2023, September 5). New IDEA guidance includes developmental language disorder as a qualifying category. The ASHA Leader. https://leader.pubs.asha.org/do/10.1044/2023-0911-slp-dld-advocacy/full/
12. Kirkley, K. M. (2026). Rethinking developmental language disorder: A case for recognizing developmental language disorder as a language-based learning disability. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 11, 1115–1123. https://doi.org/10.1044/2026_PERSP-25-00209
13. McGregor, K. K. (2020). How we fail children with developmental language disorder. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 51(4), 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS-20-00003
14. Norbury, C. F., Gooch, D., Wray, C., Baird, G., Charman, T., Simonoff, E., Vamvakas, G., & Pickles, A. (2016). The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: Evidence from a population study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(11), 1247–1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12573
15. Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1990). Development of children with early language delay. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 33(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3301.70
16. Sun, L., & Wallach, G. P. (2014). Language disorders are learning disabilities: Challenges on the divergent and diverse paths to language learning disability. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000005
17. Tomblin, J. B., Records, N. L., Buckwalter, P., Zhang, X., Smith, E., & O’Brien, M. (1997). Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40(6), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4006.1245
18. Wallach, G. P. (2005). A conceptual framework in language learning disabilities: School-age language disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(4), 292–301. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200510000-00003
19. Ward, L., Polišenská, K., & Bannard, C. (2024). Sentence repetition as a diagnostic tool for developmental language disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 67(7), 2191–2221. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00490