For years, schools have relied heavily on academic performance and standardized achievement tests to decide which children need extra support. But according to Katy Genseke, Psy.D., that approach may be leading educators to the wrong conclusions — particularly when it comes to identifying learning difficulties and learning styles in young students.
Genseke, a school psychologist with Riverside Insights, says many children — especially English language learners — are being overidentified for special education services because assessments focus too narrowly on academic outcomes rather than how children process information. In her view, students are often evaluated using tools administered in English that fail to distinguish between academic language, social language and underlying cognitive ability. The result, she says, is that children who lack exposure to academic English may appear to struggle when the issue is not a disability, but access and experience.
Skills vs. cognition
At the heart of Genseke’s concern is the difference between academic skills and cognition. Academic assessments measure what a child has learned. Cognitive assessments, by contrast, examine how a child learns, focusing on processing speed, working memory and cognitive efficiency. Genseke argues that without understanding these foundational processes, schools risk failing to understand why a child is struggling.
Approximately 7.5 million US public school students (ages 3–21), or about 15% of total enrollment, received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act during the 2022-2023 school year. Among these, roughly 32% to 35%—or over 2.3 million students — were identified with specific learning disabilities.
Too often, she says, students are moved quickly through intervention tiers without a clear picture of their cognitive profile. A child who fails to make progress in reading may be escalated to more intensive services, even though educators still do not know the root cause of the difficulty. “If we don’t do that,” she suggests, referring to early cognitive assessment, “we don’t know why she can’t read.”
Genseke believes this rush can have lasting consequences. When children are referred for special education evaluations and ultimately do not qualify, the experience itself can be damaging. Students may internalize a sense that something is “wrong” with them, even when educators later attempt to reassure them otherwise. In her view, the harm is often already done.
More pressure to test
Parents, she notes, play an increasingly influential role in the referral process. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many families have become more informed — and more anxious — about learning loss. Some push for evaluations “just in case,” hoping to secure additional attention or services for their child. While well-intentioned, Genseke cautions that labeling children too early or removing them from general education classrooms can limit their exposure to appropriate curriculum and peer learning opportunities.
Rather than waiting for students to fail academically, Genseke advocates for earlier, broader cognitive screening. She suggests assessing children at a general education level beginning in kindergarten or first grade and repeating these assessments every two years through elementary school. By that point, she says, educators would have a clearer picture of how each child learns and whether certain struggles — such as those associated with dyslexia — are likely to emerge.
Such assessments, she emphasizes, do not have to rely heavily on language. Many cognitive measures use nonverbal tasks such as puzzles or matrices, making them more accessible for English language learners. However, she acknowledges that some students, including those who are deaf or hard of hearing, may still face challenges, particularly in understanding test instructions.
Win, win
Understanding cognition, Genseke argues, benefits not only schools but students themselves. When children learn how they process information — whether they learn best visually, through repetition, or by breaking tasks into smaller steps — they gain tools to advocate for themselves. She has seen this awareness build confidence, especially among second- and third-graders, who are eager to understand how their brains work and how to practice more effectively.
For teachers, cognitive profiles can serve as a practical guide rather than another burden. Instead of “spinning wheels,” as Genseke describes it, educators can tailor instruction and intervention based on how students take in and use information. In her view, understanding cognition first provides the backbone for understanding academic struggle—and for preventing misidentification before it happens.