*Editor's Note: Professor Yoichi Sakakihara passed away in March 2025. This blog post was originally written in Japanese in December 2024.

In a previous blog, I have also touched on the subject of new names or tags for the developmental disorders that are suggested by doctors and other specialists. Private practice physicians are proposing categorizations of developmental disorders or starting to use new names without seeking the views and agreement of the many specialists at conferences. I feel this is dangerous in that it would bring about insecurity and confusion not only to specialists but even to the public.

Names such as "bumpy development" or "pseudo-developmental disorder" are fortunately not very common, but unfortunately, the word "gray zone" has taken root. Let me repeat that a "gray zone" is not the name of a diagnosis and it does not meet the standards for a diagnosis (which duly exist!), but rather a name given to a "suspicious" state that suggests the presence of symptoms similar to developmental disorders. There is no clear definition, so there is no treatment or method for dealing with the condition either. At present, it is often casually used and this seems to be creating confusion and concern.

Recently, something startled me even more. A well-known specialist in the field of developmental disabilities called children with an IQ of 70 to 85 (a groundless criteria used in the field of education), children with "borderline intelligence" and stated that this category accounted for 14% of all children (17 million children). It is understood that regarding IQ, the normal distribution is set as a bellcurve like the shape of Mt. Fuji and with 100 as an average score. In the medical field, an IQ below 70 is considered to define an intellectual disability (though it is for convenience). In the field of education, an IQ of 70 to 85 is called "borderline" or "borderline intellectual functioning," a category that applies to groups that tend to experience learning difficulty in regular classes. Such students experience difficulty in keeping up with regular classes, which can easily lead to low self-esteem and truancy.

What I am unable to understand is the reason for separating these children into one group and then tagging them as children with "borderline intelligence."

IQ is a biological characteristic of children, and throughout Japan as well as the entire world, there is a definite percentage of children with an IQ of 70-85. Individual differences in IQ are natural and expected, and there are no methods that make it possible to cultivate similarly equal IQs. It is the job of a professional teacher to understand the individuality of children who find it difficult to study and keep up with the class, and to provide appropriate teaching. There is absolutely no reason to tag and separate the child.

Of course, teachers in class find it difficult to deal with children who cannot understand the lesson or class content that is based on the curriculum guidelines. The difficulty of dealing with children who are not able to understand a lesson or class that is based on educational principles is understood to be a grave problem for teachers. However, I feel that dealing with this sort of difficult problem is precisely the responsibility and importance of teaching as a profession. Just as doctors devote themselves to the treatment of difficult illnesses, teachers are engaged in a professional role to support the growth of children.

Another thought then comes to mind. Should an educational curriculum that will be difficult and hard to follow for 14% of children (17 million children) be used as is?

I was invited to lecture at the 17^o Encuentro Internacional de Educación Inicial y Preescolar (17th International Meeting on Early and Preschool Education) held in 2017 in Monterrey, Mexico, and it was there that I heard a very interesting talk by an educational researcher who had come from Finland.

The researcher from Finland who specializes in arithmetic curricula for first-grade students closely researched their psychological development and concluded that "the current arithmetic curriculum in Finland is one year ahead of the students." In response to my questions, he answered that it was decided to delay the first-grade curriculum for one year and start using it from the second grade. Furthermore, he was the elementary school math curriculum advisor in several South American countries and advised others working in education in South America of the policy. "They wished to start the current curriculum with younger children, so I could not successfully convince them with the idea," he sighed.

If a curriculum is difficult for as many as 14% of the children to follow, shouldn't Japan, like Finland, consider the option of further "slowing down" the content (making it easier)?

Children shouldn't be forced to adapt to the curriculum, but shouldn't the curriculum be made to adjust and adapt to the conditions of children (14% cannot keep up with the curriculum)?

Turning our back on inclusive education, tagging groups of children who can't follow, and then segregating them.... Is this the road that Japan is taking?