Spotting the Signs: Communities Leading Early Identification

In our first blog, Seeing the Invisible: Understanding Learning Differences in LMICs, we highlighted the critical importance of recognising learning differences early to ensure children are not left behind. But in many low-resource contexts—where formal diagnoses are rare and specialist services scarce— the challenge is not just raising awareness but also determining who can identify these needs and how that identification can lead to action. 

Research shows you don’t have to be a specialist to spot the signs. Teachers, caregivers, and trained community volunteers are often the first people to notice when a child is struggling. Studies have found that teacher judgments can be highly accurate in flagging potential learning needs (Gresham et al., 1987), and that even brief screening tools, when used well, can correctly identify most children who later receive a formal diagnosis. 

The most effective systems don’t wait for an expert to arrive — they equip the people already closest to the child with simple, culturally relevant tools and clear guidance on what to do next.  Organisations like Building Tomorrow in Uganda, Dyslexia Organisation Kenya, Learning Differently in Kenya, Africa Dyslexia Organisation in Ghana, and Beehive School in Nigeria show that community-led identification is both possible and powerful. 

This blog explores some of the practical tools and models from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), drawing on insights from our Community of Practice and scoping study. We look at what screening looks like in the hands of non-specialists — and the conditions that make it work. 

Screening vs. Assessment 

In many LMIC settings, the terms “screening” and “assessment” are used interchangeably. But the distinction between them is important for designing appropriate support (RTI International, 2017). 

• Screening is the first step in identification. It flags children who may need support, often using simple tools applied by teachers or caregivers. 
• Assessment is a more in-depth process conducted by trained professionals, such as psychologists or speech therapists. It often requires costly and inaccessible clinical assessments. 
• Intervention follows identification—whether through classroom adaptations, parental engagement, or referrals to specialist services. 

In most low-resource settings, assessment is rarely an option. That makes screening by non-specialists not just helpful, but essential—provided it’s accurate, accessible, and linked to next steps. 

What makes screening tools effective? 

Insights from our Community of Practice(CoP), focus group discussions, and wider literature review point to four factors that determine whether screening tools are effective: 

• Ease of use: Tools must be simple, low-cost, and usable by teachers, caregivers, or community volunteers with minimal training. 
• Cultural and linguistic relevance: Screening must reflect the classroom language and local context, avoiding imported norms that may not resonate. 
• Integration into everyday teaching: To reduce stigma, screening should feel like a natural part of classroom practice rather than a separate, isolating process. 

• Clear next steps: Teachers need simple guidance on what to do when a child is flagged—whether that’s adapting instruction, speaking to caregivers, or seeking further help. 

   

Screening in action: Local innovations leading the way

Across LMICs, organisations are showing that effective screening doesn’t need to rely on expensive diagnostics—it can be community-led, locally built, and still highly impactful. 

• Dyslexia Organisation Kenya (DOK) offers a paper-based toolkit using reading and writing tasks, supported by teacher training and strong parent engagement strategies. 
• Learning Differently (Kenya) has developed an AI-based screening tool for dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) that runs offline, offering quick results. Their approach also includes teacher training to build confidence in interpreting data and initiating support. 
• Africa Dyslexia Organisation (Ghana) combines school-based screening with structured caregiver workshops, peer support groups, and practical home strategies—such as phonics-based activities—to help parents recognise and embrace learning differences. Their approach reduces stigma, strengthens home–school collaboration, and ensures follow-up support is consistent with classroom learning. 
• Beehive School (Nigeria) uses regular teacher observations to spot potential learning needs early, then works closely with parents through workshops and counselling. By addressing parental denial directly and sharing success stories, they encourage acceptance and community-level advocacy, ensuring children receive consistent help both in school and at home. 
• Building Tomorrow (Uganda) integrates screening into its Roots to Rise, TaRL-inspired programme, by using the  Washington Group Questionnaire (WGQ) to identify and support learners with potential learning differences. In order to identify which learners should complete the WGQ screening, Community Education Volunteers (CEVs) map households, and classroom teachers ask an initial question set and recommend learners for Building Tomorrow Fellows to do a more in-depth screening.  

These examples reflect a growing shift: from specialist-only models to community-owned solutions where teachers and caregivers are the first line of support. This mirrors global recommendations such as the NHS Learning Disability and Autism Framework (Skills for Health, 2019), which emphasises the importance of local capacity and workforce readiness. 

When screening stops short 

Even where screening tools are well designed, many efforts stall at the next step: follow-up. Teachers may hesitate to flag children when no support services exist, or when they fear reinforcing stigma without being able to help. Health and education systems often operate in silos, making referrals challenging, and leaving teachers and families unsure of where to turn. One educator from our Community of Practice captured this concern: 

“What’s the point of identifying a child if you’re not going to do anything after? It becomes a label instead of support.” 

This highlights the need for more integrated systems—connecting classroom-level screening to concrete interventions, caregiver communication, and (where possible) external referrals. 

Bridging the gap between flagging and support 

Despite these challenges, organisations across contexts are pioneering practical workarounds to the weak referral ecosystems. 

• Community-led outreach – Training volunteers and caregivers to identify learning disabilities, embrace these children and support them before children enter school. 
• Blended tools – Combining pen and paper based simple tools with offline digital tools to suit varied contexts. 
• Teacher-first adaptations – Focusing on immediate instructional changes, drawing on models like RTI International’s phased support (RTI International, 2017), which encourages classroom-based interventions even without a formal assessment. 

Rather than waiting for ideal systems, these models meet communities where they are—relying on teachers, volunteers, and parents as agents of change. 

A system starter, not a silver bullet 

Screening is not a solution in itself. But in low-resource settings, it is often the only available step—and that makes it a critical entry point. When paired with training, community ownership, and low-cost referral pathways, screening becomes a way to begin identifying and addressing needs, especially for children who might otherwise go unseen. As the Skills for Health (2019) framework outlines, frontline actors need not be specialists to make a difference—what they need is clarity, confidence, and support. 

If learning differences are to be addressed at scale in LMICs, screening must evolve from isolated practice to embedded system—connected to national priorities on inclusion, early learning, and teacher development. 

Final Reflection 

Screening may seem like a small act—but in many low-resource settings, it represents a shift from passively waiting to actively noticing. It signals to children and families that learning needs matter. When teachers and communities are equipped with the right tools, they can lead the charge in creating inclusive classrooms. 

By investing in practical tools, teacher training, and local leadership, we can ensure that screening becomes the first step toward support—not a dead end. 

References 

• Gresham, F. M., Reschly, D. J., & Carey, M. P. (1987). Teachers as “Tests”: Classification Accuracy and Concurrent Validation in the Identification of Learning-Disabled Children. School Psychology Review, 16(4), 543–553. Link. 
• RTI International (2017). Early Screening and Intervention Strategies: The Role of Schools in Identifying and Supporting Children with Learning Differences. Link 
• Schools2030 (2023). Understanding Learning Differences in Classrooms. Link 
• Skills for Health (2019). The Learning Disability and Autism Framework: Supporting Workforce Development. Link