Decades of research and classroom practice have reshaped how students with learning disabilities are supported in schools across the United States and beyond. Federal law in the U.S. identifies several disability categories that may qualify a student for special education or other accommodations. Some of these conditions—such as deafness, blindness, or orthopedic impairments—create barriers to access even when the brain’s basic learning mechanisms are intact.
Other conditions directly involve the brain’s learning systems. Specific learning disabilities reflect weaknesses in the psychological processes that underlie learning. These deficits can affect visual and verbal working memory, processing speed, short-term memory, and other cognitive functions. Intellectual disability similarly reduces the brain’s capacity to learn. Additionally, many students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) exhibit underdeveloped cognitive processes—attention, working memory, and executive functions—that are essential for academic success.
Educators who support students with cognitive processing weaknesses commonly rely on three traditional strategies to help students access curriculum and demonstrate learning:
1) Accommodations: Adjustments to the learning environment or task demands that reduce the impact of a cognitive weakness (for example, giving instructions one at a time for a student with limited working memory).
2) Compensatory strategies: Teaching techniques or tools that compensate for a weakness, such as using graphic organizers or assistive technology to support reading and writing.
3) Academic interventions: Targeted instruction in reading, writing, or math that focuses on specific skill development while working around cognitive constraints.
While these approaches reduce barriers and help students manage daily tasks, they often fall short of producing lasting academic gains. Many students receiving special education continue to lag behind their peers and rely on supports throughout their schooling. Emerging research suggests a major reason: these strategies typically bypass, rather than remediate, the underlying cognitive deficits that limit learning.
Over the past decade, educators and researchers have explored a fourth approach: directly training the cognitive processes that are weak. Instead of only working around deficits, this remediation model aims to strengthen the brain skills that support learning so students can progress more like their typically developing peers. Much of the initial research focused on working memory, a core executive function closely tied to academic achievement. Although many studies report improvements in working memory after training, transfer to academic skills has been inconsistent when training targets a single function.
Our approach is broader and more integrated. We work to develop a comprehensive set of cognitive skills across attention, memory (including working memory), visual and auditory processing, sensory integration, and logic/reasoning. Training a range of processes together appears to produce stronger, more reliable gains in both cognitive functioning and academic outcomes for students with specific learning disabilities and for those identified under IDEA categories such as ASD and ADHD. Students who receive sustained cognitive training often demonstrate improved readiness for reading and math interventions and, in some cases, faster progress toward grade-level expectations.
When adding cognitive skills development to an Individualized Education Program (IEP), schools should consider four essential elements:
1) Current level of performance
Begin with a clear baseline of a student’s cognitive and academic functioning. Standardized cognitive batteries and assessments—along with teacher and parent observations—help define the areas of need. Academic benchmark tests provide complementary information about current achievement levels. Together, these measures guide targeted intervention planning.
2) Measurable goals
IEPs that include cognitive training should set concrete, measurable goals for both cognitive growth and observable classroom behaviors. Historically, cognitive test results were treated as diagnostic and static; however, when cognitive remediation is part of the plan, reassessing cognitive skills after intervention documents progress. Behavioral goals—based on specific teacher and parent observations—should describe meaningful classroom outcomes, such as the ability to copy assignments accurately from the board or to follow multi-step directions independently. Academic goals should aim not only for improvement but for narrowing the gap toward grade-level norms and peer performance.
3) Services
The IEP must specify the cognitive training program or tools to be used, the frequency and duration of instruction, the staff responsible for implementation, and methods for monitoring progress. An effective cognitive training program should meet rigorous criteria: targeted, adaptive practice; integration across complementary cognitive domains; frequent, objective progress monitoring; and alignment with classroom goals.
4) Participation with non-disabled students
Computerized cognitive training can be implemented in ways that allow students receiving services to work alongside their non-disabled peers, preserving opportunities for inclusion and social learning while receiving targeted support.
When cognitive weaknesses are addressed directly, many students show meaningful remediation of underlying processing deficits. Some students are able to transition more quickly to mainstream classrooms; others make faster gains from reading and math interventions after cognitive training has increased their capacity to learn. While remediation is not a universal cure, integrating cognitive skills development into special education planning offers a promising pathway to improved outcomes and greater independence for students with learning challenges.
About the authors
Betsy Hill is President of BrainWare Learning Company, an organization focused on building learning capacity through the practical application of neuroscience. An experienced educator, she has studied the intersection of neuroscience and education with leading experts and has held leadership roles in higher education. She teaches strategic thinking in an MBA program and has been recognized for contributions to learning excellence.
Roger Stark is Co-founder and CEO of BrainWare Learning Company. For more than a decade he has driven efforts to make comprehensive cognitive skills training and assessment accessible and affordable. He led the development of online cognitive training tools designed to support integrated cognitive and academic development for learners of varying needs.