I have been wondering for some time whether my youngest child has dyslexia and was planning on getting him tested. There has been much publicity given recently to Professor Julian Elliot’s claim that dyslexia as a label is meaningless. Dyslexia in children has been a controversial subject for years, but this article came out a few weeks ago in the Saturday Times (19th April) and he says that the label ‘dyslexia’ is useless, that it is unscientific, lacks meaning and should be ditched. This has left me, like many other parents left either wondering what to do now?
Can it be helpful in any way to simply dismiss this term? How much damage will this now cause? Where does it leave us all if that is the case? Should I not bother to get him assessed now then, even though there are thousands of parents and children around the country who live with it every day?
I have a very good friend who has set up a dyslexia trust as a result of producing three out of four children with dyslexia. She says “using the label ‘dyslexia,’ a term well documented scientifically, means something – to scientists, teachers, parents (not just middle class ones), other professionals and most importantly, to dyslexics themselves. It doesn’t tell us everything about them, but it’s a starting point. It is a useful point of reference to enable teachers to understand these children who struggle and to tailor their teaching accordingly”
She has written a response on why the label “dyslexia” matters and summarised below for anybody with concerns:-
What does Elliot say?
In a nutshell he thinks the term dyslexia should be ditched because it is unscientific, lacks meaning and leads to middle class parents spending money trying to prove their child isn’t stupid.
Does he agree that children have problems with literacy?
Yes. He does not question the existence of real, sometimes complex, problems that lead to individuals having difficulty with learning literacy skills. He acknowledges this is due to differences in their biological and genetic make up.
What does he think should happen?
He says the term ‘dyslexia’ should be replaced with ‘Reading Disabled.’ This is a neat term, which he regards as scientifically clear.
There are problems though with his arguments, apart from the obvious one that he’s just replacing one term with another. Does this really help?
There is plentiful scientific research
‘Dyslexia’ is a term around which a vast body of scientific knowledge exists. Experts include Professor Uta Frith, Professor Sally Shaywitz, Professor Max Coltheart, Professor Morag Stuart, Professor John Stein (incidentally, brother of Rick), Professor Rhona Stainthorp, Professor Dorothy Bishop, – I could go on.
What’s the value in Elliot’s new definition?
Reading Disabled, identified as those who have difficulty reading a single word or decoding will certainly tell us that a child is at the low end of the standardized score, but where does that take us? Elliot seems to think that interventions for those with dyslexia should be the same for anyone with a decoding difficulty, but in reality, that’s just not so, as many parents will know who have struggled to help their children learn to read. There is good research evidence for well-structured, multi sensory, phonics based teaching that makes a difference. However, even with this, some dyslexics will still struggle to read. As someone once said to me “you can phonic a child to death sometimes and they still won’t get it.”
A child may have a low score but this could be because they have had a lack of educational opportunities or low attendance at school. The point is, this child will catch up with reading whereas a dyslexic child will need interventions and on-going support.
Dyslexia isn’t just about poor reading – Elliot misunderstands what dyslexia is.
The Rose Review (see our report Fish in the Tree) gave a working definition of dyslexia that recognizes a learning difficulty primarily around reading and spelling but also features difficulties in verbal memory and verbal processing skills. These are very real elements resulting in, for example, difficulty in taking notes and listening at the same time and remembering a long sequence of instructions which impact so crucially on a dyslexic child’s learning, that Elliot ignores.
The definition goes on to recognize it is a continuum, not a distinct category, and that there are no clear cut-off points. Elliot argues this makes it unscientific and lacking in meaning. Really? As a recent Australian article states (1) issues of obesity and blood pressure are continuum conditions that makes them no less relevant as labels. (We don’t talk about weight disability!). Indeed, it means that for the most severe cases, attention and resources can be directed to where they are needed.
He refers to the very number of dyslexics – in the UK we say 10% of the population are dyslexic, in the US they acknowledge 20% – as a reason for it being a useless label. Again, really? Does the fact that a huge percentage of the population needs glasses mean that the labels ‘short or long sighted’ shouldn’t exist?
It is worth remembering that dyslexia is considered a disability under the Equality Act 2010 and is recognized as a Special Educational Need in the Children and Families Act 2014.
“Dooms those without a label to false accusations of stupidity” – Elliot on Mumsnet
I don’t get this argument. He seems to be saying that because, so far, we haven’t recognized dyslexia properly in our schools, we should throw out the label because there are so many out there who deserve it and haven’t got it! (Stop calling short sighted people short sighted, as there are other undiagnosed short sighted people out there?)
Parents wasting money
One of the main arguments Elliot has for abandoning the label dyslexia relates to what he sees as parents being woefully misled about the value of a dyslexia diagnosis. His point is that parents feel that with this diagnosis, there will be clear guidelines about what to do to help their child, and there are not.
Again, he is wrong. You cannot cure dyslexia; a dyslexic person will always be dyslexic but what happens is that they learn, as they grow older. In my experience, they learn to read and write better with practice and time but more importantly, they learn strategies to help them navigate their way through school and exams, finding that when they leave education, their life becomes easier in many ways.
The problem is that teachers are not trained to teach children who struggle to read and write. Just because not all teachers are trained to know what to do, doesn’t mean you throw out the label ‘dyslexia’. What it means is that you teach teachers what dyslexia is, what they can do in their classroom to help their students and when they need to refer them to further specialist help. They have a statutory duty to do this under the Children and Families Act 2014 and Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice.
Middle class issue
Here again is a reason for more training and more recognition of dyslexia. An assessment results in finding out the strengths and weaknesses a child has over a whole range of issues. From this, teachers, parents and the child themselves are better able to understand what they find difficult and a plan can be put in place to ensure that they get the appropriate support throughout their education. It is especially important when it comes to exams, and will become even more so with recent Government changes. Assessments mean children can get reasonable adjustments so that they can achieve to the best of their ability despite their dyslexia. Remember, dyslexia impacts on the form in which information is presented; it is not the information itself that is the problem.
This test costs between £400 – £800 and as such, is beyond the reach of most people. Even the middle class parents that the media like to bash find it a struggle. It is unforgiveable that children in state schools are not able to access an assessment. Local Authorities, schools or clusters of schools, should all have access to a Level 7 Specialist Dyslexia Teacher who is qualified to undertake such assessments. That is what we have put in place in ARK Schools.
Incidentally, it is exam boards that insist that this test is renewed every few years, which is a total waste of funds. As stated above, dyslexia doesn’t go away. A short assessment for the benefit of the child to see what progress has been made is useful, but it shouldn’t be an exam requirement.
Why does the label matter?
It matters because it helps an individual make sense of their difficulties. It helps them understand why they are struggling more than their peers. It matters because it means teachers can understand a child’s particular difficulties and tailor their teaching accordingly, ensuring a child reaches their potential and is not held back by their disability. It is a useful point of reference.
It may not mean anything to Elliot but it matters to the 10% of the population who are dyslexic. The issue of ‘meaning’ is subjective, not scientific, and he ignores the social and emotional benefits of understanding that what you are is dyslexic, not stupid, and that there are thousands of people out there just like you. If anyone doubts how empowering this knowledge is, through self awareness, ask an adult dyslexic who finds out for the first time they are dyslexic only when their child is diagnosed. For the first time their struggles through school fall into place and they recognize they are not stupid.
The way ahead
I agree with Elliot that it’s awful that there are struggling children who wait years for a diagnosis that may never come. I agree there should be a greater focus on literacy acquisition and early intervention when there are problems. However, the answer is not by ditching the label ‘dyslexia’ but by embracing it, training teachers about it, ensuring we have a network of highly qualified specialist teachers who can carry out assessments with a view to ensuring all our children learn to read and write and to leave school with qualifications appropriate to their ability.
