There is no such thing as dyslexia.

[VioletBaudelaire]

www.theherald.co.uk/display.var.1430434.0.0.php?utag=40859
I've had my say!

My son's school I am sure followed national literacy stragy and did include phonics I am sure, in fact it had an excellent reputation and outstanding ofsted. But they seemed to be at a loss when his reading was falling behind and the suggestions for parents to help would always be along the lines of guess from, say, first word, context, picture clues etc or just generally read to your child (and we did masses of that). I have since read about synthetic phonics and I am sure this would have helped him massively if he'd been taught it from the start. I have another 2 children, girls -one is an excellent early "self taught" reader, the youngest is not outstanding but just normal, and it was my experience of seeing her learn that convinced me that I was right all along in thinking DS had a fairly major problem. Obviously a lot of children learn well with the methods schools have been using but there has been a lot of criticism of these methods and I think justifiably so. My point is: why start labelling all; these children as dyslexic, I am convinced a lot of them could be taught to read well if more structured methods were used.

I don't think children get confused by having a variety of reading styles thrown at them. One strategy of reading does not work for all words, let alone for all children. Teachers use a variety of methods when teaching to read for that very reason. Phonics only takes you so far in English. You have to understand words to read, as well as decode them. So teachers use initial letter guess/contextual clues/looking at the picture/sight vocab, as well as phonics.

I would agree that postponing learning to read for some children, until they are developmentally ready, would be a good thing. That way those who find it difficult are not learning to fail at the start of their school life.

Sanae - x post. Do agree that some children are let down by the system. We offered after school clubs in a scheme called Active Literacy where I work. This was successful in turning some non-readers into readers in quite a short space of time. It seemed silly that we ended up doing it out of school hours, it should have been integrated. The problem is always one of staffing imo.

Haven't read all this thread, but feel incensed by that guy.

Ds has IQ of 136 (top 2% of population) and MENSA material.

He is also dyslexic. That guy is talking from where the sun don't shine

There's a genetic element often with dyslexia so not caused by teaching styles.

On languages she just couldn't manage them at all. She was doing latin, French and German and ended up just taking one French (or was it German?) GCSE.

I still can't see why the label is specific enough to be helpful. Some people in other posts have said their DC has been diagnosed dyslexic but can read well, but maybe has problems with spelling/co-ordination. So how is this label tell us anything useful. OF COURSE children can be bright but have a specific reading difficulty - I have quoted my own DS as an example - but the point some people are making is that all children who have problems reading can be helped by certain identifiable methods, all need help. So why is putting a diagnosis of dyslexia on children with higher IQ and reading problems helpful when you might not do it on someone of lower IQ with reading problems. There is every possibility that both need the same type of help - in fact putting the dyslexic label on one might be giving him/her more resources unfairly over the other.

Have a look at this link.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6192891.stm

"Five years ago 28% of youngsters starting secondary education in the disadvantaged area of West Dunbartonshire were functionally illiterate.

Two years later only 8% fell into this category."

Surely this shows that 20% of the children benefitted from a change in teaching methods. Unlike Clackmanshire, Dumbartonshire is quite a large council in Scotland.

The teaching methods used two years ago in Dumbartonshire are not different to most of England. The number of non readers in England could be reduced significantly. Dumbartonshire has achieved such high results by using purely synthetic phonics initally. (Ie. no look say methods whatsoever)

my point exactly frances5- we are labelling unnecessarily - teaching methods encouraged at least until recently (?is this dictated by government)have not always been helpful. I am not saying that there is not a hard core of children who will have difficulty no matter which methods are used, but teaching methods must make a difference.

Xenia is right - dyslexia is not just "being bad at literacy". It is a different wiring. DH is quite badly dyslexic and although he wears glasses for his short sight, he refused to have extra time etc for exams mainly because of unhelpful attitudes like that ignorant prof. - it cost him a joint first degree at Uni, (he missed it by a tiny margin, and knew that one tutor particularly had penalised him for his ghastly writing and spelling). His forte is computers, whereas my strengths are completeley opposite - I was reading before 4yrs etc. I was astounded when he said he couldn't visualise words in his head - me, if I want to spell something I can get a mental picture of the word (in alternative scripts if I want!) I can't imagine how you would start to spell something if you can't "see" it in your head.

Dyslexia is diagnosed on the basis of a discrepancy between IQ scores and literacy (can be reading/spelling/written work)scores often with other specific areas such as short term memory and processing speed being identified as weaknesses as well by the tests.

There should also usually be evidence that adequate teaching has been provided so that difficulties are not attributable to lack of expreinece/exposure.

No true IQ test relies on verbal or spatial exclusively as some one suggested earier. Subtests for these, and non verbal reasoning are given equal weight.

There is no accepted defintiom of dyslexia, at last count there were approximately 180 different defintions being used by various organistaions and academics often giving very differing accounts.

The whole brain wiring thing is very contentious, with multiple theories but no conclusive evidence for any of them.

IME dyslexics can present very differing cognitibe profiles on testing. Some are very verbal some are very logical etc etc

It is true that teaching methods that help dyslexics help all children and it is somewhat of a myth that they need somethng exclusive and different. But a diagnosis is often very important to the child and parents to understand the nature of thier difficulties and to plan from there. It can often appear a general problem when in fact it is very specific.

(Iam an EP BTW and diagnose dyslexia quite alot).

" I was astounded when he said he couldn't visualise words in his head - me, if I want to spell something I can get a mental picture of the word (in alternative scripts if I want!) I can't imagine how you would start to spell something if you can't "see" it in your head."

It is possible to learn to spell words by listening for sounds in words. Dication is part of Jolly phonics. You use your ears break the word down into letter sounds.(ie. c-a-t) Admitally my son is really struggling with this because he has a hearing loss.

Lizyjane you are right that 'phonics only takes you so far in English' - it is like learning your numbers, once you have learnt the integers 1 - 9 you can then expand on additional concepts to learn about hundreds, fractions etc

Reading is eaxctly the same - without an understanding of the alphabetic code and what the various 'squiggles' on paper actually 'say' a child will struggle to get the basics.

Obviously if you sound out a word and do not understand what it means, THEN you need contextual clues to understand it (or look it up in a dictionary/ ask!)

I agree that dyslexia is not just 'reading difficulty' but there is evidence that the 'mis-wiring' in the brain in some cases is actually casued by the incorrect teaching methods, particualry in boys.

I know from my children that it is much easier for them to guess an unknown word than laboriously sound it out intially which is why phonics must be taught exclusively intially until it becomes automatic, then the other, comprehension, strategies can be introduced.

Oh FGS this man is just peddling the sort of nonsense that was around 20 years ago and has been completely disproved. What a tosser.

It is helpful to parents to know a child is not being lazy but has a problem. I know it's hard to define. My daughter went to the Kensington Dylexia Centre a few times which was good but she was never very bad or she found ways around it as she's quite clever. I certainly find a different way of thinking amongst some dylexics. I don't know if that is because the brain is different but one person I work with has different kinds of ideas (as well as being very messy just like my daughter in adulthood).

I still say the term is too woolly and needs an agreed definition if it was to be useful. If there are 180 definitions it sounds as though no-one really knows what it is. If someone tells me their child is dyslexic what does this tell me ? OK, that they have some problem somewhere with "literacy". Spelling? reading? writing? - good on one , poor on the others, poor on all three, see what I mean? Surely to be helpful and support a child you need to know very precisely what their strengths and weaknesses are and dyslexia is too sloppier a term to do this. How is it helpful? And why would we even think children are being lazy when they have a problem - we can see ourselves that they are not and shouldn't need a sloppy term to excuse them from this.

DH spent his entire school life being told he was stupid.

He started art college at 18 where everyone is screened for dyslexia (due to the high number of artists being dyslexic) and surprise surprise he isn't stupid as anyone who actually speaks to him can tell!!!

It gave him the optimism to actually try reading books again - they helped him to find a subject that interested him, start slow and keep trying. They knew how to help him, and now he would be lost without books.

If only they had done it when he was 6/7

Most things are a bit woolly when they are given a blanket term. I get the idea it is a spectrum type thing - all different kinds of the same time like autism & autistic spectrum disorders.

Sanae there is no agreement and there isn'tlikely to be. No one knows what causes it and there are many and varied theories.

If some one says their child is dyslexic though, what that does tell you is that they have specific difficulties with litercay and that their diffciculties with literacy are not in line with their general ability.

That is often very important, as difficulties in literacy can often present as general difficulies, as it is an all pervasive subject at school and in life. It is often very impotant for people thast the specific nature is identified.

Other poel have specifc difficulties in all sorts of areas; in sport, art, music, but this is not as central to all other aspects of learning and teaching and so does not interfere with it. A specific difficuty wiuth literacy can compromise all learning and people's overall view of a childs intelligence. That is why it is different and needs identifying.

but then part of the problem with that definition is that it is diverting resources towards a particular part of the population ie those with the "diagnosis" as opposed to those who maybe are of lower IQ (but not "thick")but still can't read well. I believe that many of thse children with both high and low IQ could be taught to read well with appropriate methods and I suppose that is where the arguement is - should we be diverting resources to "dyslexics" or generally to people with reading difficulties. In fact I don't doubt that there are a small proportion of people of both high and low IQ who will struggle whatever methods are used, but I think many people are caught in the dyslexia net because of incorrect teaching methods.

There are lots of reasons some children find it hard to read. In fact when my daughter was 5 one issue was her ears. She had a grommets operation and suddenly brightened up. So all kinds of things could be an issue. But I do think there is a specific word blindness that is dyslexia which you can generally test for reasonably well and is helpful to do. It is particularly annoying if very clever children are branded stupid or lazy and in fact they have it and they never do well as it's not picked up.

I know someone severely dyslexic but it was picked up 30 years ago, he went to a dyslexia prep boarding school and eventually on to Cambridge.

I agree with that Sanae. resources need to be for childrenwith difficulties regardless of the nature of that difficulty.

Diagnosing dyslexia should not really be about resources, it should be about understanding the problem and empowering the student. However resources are skewed nto dyslexia because it is predominently a middle class condition and those parents fight for the resources and know how to access the resources for their children.

Often chilren with more general difficulties have parents who are not able to do that for them.

It' a truth everyone who works in this area knows.

Interesting thread.
Both my children are dyslexic, and have completely different difficulties.
DS1 has superb reading skills but finds pencil control, letter formation and spelling very tricky. He is also dyspraxic and has a visual problem which compound the problems.
DS2 can write and spell fairly well, but finds reading very difficult.
Neither of them got any help from the LEA.
There was an ingrained belief that "lots of boys just aren't very good at reading and writing, but they'll catch up eventually".
By the time the school system admits there is an issue, the child is often 4 - 5 years behind their peers, and their self-esteem is crushed.
So, the label is a bit of red-herring, IMO, as there is sod all appropriate help for these children, diagnosed or not.

I'd never use he state system of its resources. We paid for everything we have ever had for help with the children and they are in private schools.

I doubt dyslexia is middle class. I think it's probably widespread amongst all groups.

We now home educate because the private schools we looked at didn't seem to have any better provision for dyslexic children than state schools.

"Dyslexia is diagnosed on the basis of a discrepancy between IQ scores and literacy"

This does rather imply that a diagnosis of dyslexia cannot be given to a child with low IQ.

Does that mean any cognitive differences associated with dyslexia are not there in children with a low IQ and reading difficulties? Or, if they are helped by the same strategies, is it an issue with the diagnostic method?