To think that some parents like to label their children as dyslexic/dyscalculic/dyspraxic or as kinaesthetic learners....

[MrsSchadenfreude]

...rather than accept the fact that their child might not be particularly bright/academic, and by so doing this detracts from children who genuinely are eg dyslexic?

This thread is about labels being used and/or sought inappropriately rather than the challenges faced by those with genuine SN.

I think that part of the problem is that the conditions listed in the OP are poorly defined and so many parents can't really tell, objectively, if their child meets the criteria or not. Even assessments by properly trained professionals will be subjective. That does not mean they are wrong - just there will be a grey area around where lines should be drawn.

I think some parents do give their children undiagnosed labels. I have come across it with regard to undiagnosed "health problems" as well.

I don't really see what business it is of anyone else if a parent wants a diagnosis of something or other.

However, personally I would be more inclined to run away from getting any label put on my child as I have seen parents (in my own family) use the 'condition' as an excuse for bad parenting, not following through etc - oh, it's their dyspraxia etc. I think unless there are genuinely strong symptoms, that can be helped with special assistance, then good parenting should be able to deal with many of the things that I have seen put down to 'conditions'.

I also don't get the whole madness that goes on around getting your child into a 'good' school (another debate), as if the school has all the responsibility for how your child learns and develops - same issue as above really - abdicating responsibility

I agree with snow leopard- and no one said it was fun or an excuse, imo.
MrsS was commenting on a social issue she had an opinion on-not on special needs per se but how they are perceived.

House of Lords debate 7.12.05
Baroness Walmsley..'Dyslexics are up to 4 times more likely to be in prison or on probation than non-dyslexics.' Also explains that DFES figures show that 64% of children permanently excluded from school have special needs and of that group 80% have dyslexia. Prestigous? I don't think so.

I would just like to let people know the process that should happen in school with regard to "extra help"
The first level is called school action, this should be help that is put into place when a child is identified as falling behind the level that is expected of their age group.
The next level is school action plus, which means that the school can call for additional support from other outside people ie, speach and language, OT, EP etc
The final level is a statement of special educational needs, this is a document that is set out to identify the needs of an individual child and to secure the funding and help needed for that individual child. Every statement is different and applies only to one child.
If the above is carried out by a school (unfortunately it often isn't) then being bright or (as others have put it) thick should be of no consequence in the early stages of help. If a child is falling behind then help should be put in place.
If a child has some other contributing factor, ie dyslexia/dyspraxia then that should be identifed as well.
It is very very difficult to get a statement for dyslexia, and having a DX does not always get you extra help.
Many parents seek a DX so that they can put extra help in themselves at home.

Ok I don't know about the other things but dyslexia certainly isn't poorly defined. Of course assessments are subjective, but there is a huge amount of research into dyslexia and lots of very good assessments and tests to help make a valid diagnosis. I think it would be quite hard to get a 'wrong' diagnosis of this just because the parents want it.

Osrry, this may not be the best thread for me to be on. I understand it is about people wrongly using these labels as some kind of 'excuse' for their kids, rather than people with genuine SEN.

cornsilk - you could as easily argue that it was the diagnosis that did the damage rather than the condition.

stats used like that are very misleading

are they only assessing the ones that cause trouble?

OK Snowleopard, I'm a touch sensitive this morning as am sleep deprived, apologies if I have over reacted.

I do see what you are saying and think it is extremely sad if parents really do look on a diagnosis in this way - a sad indication of society today if really they perceive a diagnosis in these terms.

No - stats like that are the cause of lack of diagnosis/ help/ support in the early years of a child's education. A person with dyslexia is hindered by inappropriate teaching methods - not by their dyslexia.

(last post to Upwind by the way.)

Aaaargh. I'll try again.

Richard Rogers has dyslexia. He often talks about it and his success is seen as a kind of triumph-over-tragedy situation and his dyslexia is not something anyone would be rude about (rightly so of course).

Someone who has trouble with academic work, perhaps to the same degree as him, but not because they are dyslexic, but because they are not academic, can be called "thick" and "stupid" and generally laughed at.

That is the point I was making by my use of prestige. Not that having dyslexia is in itself prestigious or indeed fun or an excuse. "Not" that it is in fact anything other than a difficulty which sufferers would generally probably rather not have. But that people tend to perceive it positively - far more positively than being "normal" and just not very good at school stuff. That is what prestige means. It is about perception of other people that you are not thick, you are just dyslexic, it's not your fault. All true of course.

My point is, if you're not academic, but not dyslexic, that's not your fault either, but the general perception is that you are in fact a bit dim and that it's OK to be rude about that. Therefore, parents with DC in that situation might indeed hope or imagine their child was dyslexic. that doesn't mean they are right, or that being dyslexic is in fact a bed of roses. It means there are certain perceptions.

I will stop now I promise.

My ds doesn't actually have a dx as yet but I know without a shadow of a doubt that he is on the autisitc spectrum. I talk about him having AS and ADHD because he has so many traits of both those conditions. I'm not just sticking a label on him for the sake of it. His behaviour makes little sense and appears unpredictable until you view him as having AS and ADHD - then it makes sense and is easier to understand. He does have a statement though.

PotPourri it must be great to be in your family

Actually I do know what you mean snow leopard, but I'm in a bit of an arsey mood today. It relates I think to the general belief that dyslexics are all bright - which isn't true. People with dyslexia can be of any ability.

googled for dyslexia diagnostic criteria & found this: article in the times

"Despite countless studies, some experts claim, there remains no scientific proof that dyslexics have symptoms or problems that differ from those encountered by others with reading difficulties. In more than 30 years of working in this field, Professor Julian Elliott, an educational psychologist at Durham University, says that he has found no concrete evidence that the condition is clearly identifiable and therefore would not have the confidence to diagnose it. ?As yet, nobody has been able to demonstrate scientifically that there is this subgroup of poor readers that should be termed dyslexic,? he says. ?There are all sorts of reasons why people don?t read well but we can?t determine why that is. Dyslexia, as a term, is becoming meaningless.?"

Depends which article you read Upwind!
In 'Dyslexia Genetics' John Stein states that dyslexia genes prove that dyslexia is a real neurological condition with a clear biological reality and explains the occurance of neuropathological abnormalities at 24 weeks gestation.

I don't want to comment on dyslexia diagnosis at a young age since I am lucky enough to have always found written communication very easy. To me it just 'makes sense' like (as my layman's understanding tells me) it just doesn't make the same logical sense to someone who does have dyslexia.

On the subject of dyslexia in university students, however, I feel I am in more of a position to comment. I'm a student (English) and I know two people well from my course who, since being at uni, have been tested and deemed to be dyslexic. These people have managed to get three As at A level, including English to get where they are. Surely, this would not be possible if you had, at the time, undiagnosed dyslexia? (Please correct me if am wrong)

Both referred themselves to this test. It is one simple test, takes about an hour, on the strength of which ONE person decides that they are dyslexic. Both of these students openly admitted that they deliberately did the test with a hangover and actively tried to do badly on the appropriate parts of the test. Both were deemded dyslexic. Both were then told they could pick a laptop, scanner, printer, digital camera (???), software and were entitled to free internet access. Both of them are from wealthy families and both had all of these things already. The university paid for them to get posher replacements. To my understanding there was a cap on it, but it was something like £2500, so they hardly needed to get the cheapest.

Now, can anyone justify this to me? Either in terms of how they managed for twenty years without struggling with their 'dyslexia' or why exactly a scanner, printer or digital camera is necessary even if they are dyslexic? Or why such things are not means tested?

Hmm yes, go searching on the internet for 'evidence' from experts to back up whatever opinion you have and you will find it.

Sorry upwind, but a Times article and Julian Elliot's opinions are not conclusive tbh. But I'm not going to get into this debate. There are always too sides to debates like this.

i don't know who these mythical parents are who push for a diagnosis of SN.
the parents i know accept their children, regardless of intellectual ability.
DS was struggling at school, and i though, 'you know, he is just not as clever as we thought, oh well, he is very artistic , not everyone is academic'

was initially when it turned out he is dyslexic, with specific learning impairment, first thing his teacher picked up on was the chasm betwen his social and verbal interaction and intelligence and his written work. School did all the running in terms of diagnosing him

now , i am glad he has DX as he gets an awful lot of help BUT he was getting that pre diagnosis anyway.... his diagnosis means i know why he struggles and i have been given help to help him.

but initially, prestige and getting him into a different school was not on my agenda
FFS

snowleopard - I get what you are saying, just not sure if I agree with everthing you are saying.
I do agree that there has been quite a lot of positive press about dyslexic people doing well, Jamie Oliver, Anita Roddick, Richard Branson etc but I think it has been put out there in an effort to help people who end up with low self esteem (sorry I can't spell - probably thick) as a result of having to struggle so much with an element of school life you can't avoid. You have to write and read at school and if you have a problem with it you can't opt out.
I can see why some parents would self dx dyslexia for their child, who infact, is just not bright, but I think that this is more a symptom of our current culture, where so many people think their children are gifted and talented and make others feel like their "normal" children are stupid or that you as a parent are not doing enough to bring them along.

SlackSally, by the time you get to university you have had Years to come up with coping strategies and ways of dealing with your dyslexia, that probably explains your friends. It is not always limiting, it's just that the usual ways of teaching aren't the best ways for dyslexics, but they can overcome their reading/writing/spelling difficulties and do just as well academically as people without these difficulties.

By the time I got to university no-one would have known I was dyslexic as I had compensated, but I still knew it took me double the time as it took anyone else to get through all the reading, and I couldn't spell to save my life, and words moved and blurred if the writing was black on a white background.

I also got all As for A-level, largely as I put in an awful lot of work and effort. Dyslexia isn't going to hold you back if you don't want it to. It just means you have to put in an awful lot more effort than if you didn't have dyslexia.

Hope that helps explain it better to you.

www.dyslexia-adults.com/a28.html

Lots of undiagnosed dyslexics just struggle with it,have learnt ways of coping-doesn't make it any easier for them,surely if they given the option of some help-they should take it?

SlackSally - dyslexics have to develop coping strategies to get by. It is like driving in a foreign country - you can do it but you have to put a lot more effort in than everyone else. Many girls don't get diagnosed with dyslexia until F/E or H/E. Are your friends girls out of interest?

You don't know they didn't 'struggle' with their dyslexia Slacksally, you're making asusmptions based on the fact that they got good A-levels including an A in English? You obviously know little about dyslexia. Anyway, as I said, it doesn't limit your ability if you know how to compensate and how to learn using different methods to those used in mainstream school.