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!

Are there people who have difficulty reading but are high achievers in other areas, that AREN'T given the diagnosis dyslexic?

If so, how can you test to determine the difference between a dyslexic and someone with non-dyslexic reading problems?

A good school will provide help with reading for all children with reading difficulties without a statement and therefore 'support' by the LEA. And it is in their best interests to do so. Until I moved into SEN teaching I had no idea what a reading age of 6 or 7 actually meant in terms of the resources I was using with my classes. I now to think of what I gave children to work with. At my last school we did a 3 year reading recovery programme with all children with a reading age of less than 9 on entry (whether they had a diagnosis of dyslexia or not), and it was very successful.

In our case the diagnosis made no difference whatsoever to the level of support.
I don't know of anyone who managed to get a statement for appropriate support to help them with their dyslexia.

A diagnosis without a statement wouldn't have made any difference in our school either TBH. As I said, all children with reading difficulties received the same intervention.

v, there must be. There may be someone with a sight problem for example.
My daughter's performance at school improved hugely after her ear operation.

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

BeckyBraStraps - no, that doesn't imply that the IQ has to be high. It is certainly possible for an individual to have a lower than 'average' IQ but still have the profile of specific difficulties - in comparison with the areas of relative strength - associated with dyslexia. The 'relative' strengths and weaknesses are the key element.

Harder to diagnose though surely in a child with a low IQ? With less pronounced 'strengths'.

Anyway, I'm not arguing against dyslexia. But I do have sympathy with the idea that all children with literacy problems should have access to support and intervention programmes.

And I think the bloke in question is being rather misrepresented.

Selfishmoo is right. The discrepancy between IQ and literacy can still be there in childrem with lower/low IQ. Not always as glaring obvious but can be picked up.

Dyslexia is hugely middle class in terms of diagnosis. the statistics are HUGELY skewed towards this area of the population. But that is DIAGNOSIS and not prevalnece. there is an imporatant difference.

And resources are filtered through to children with dyslexia diagnoses. There are many chilren in private schools, specialising in dyslexia, funded by LEA'a as the parents took the LEA to tribunal to demand this. I know because I've been to these tribunals.

Also been to tribunals where parents want statements for dyslexia and LEA refusing. Once identified parents understandably want help and resources and many, again understandably, go to great lengts to use the system to get that. Despite the school and LEA knowing that there are other children in that school/LEA with greater need.

Of course parents fight for their childs needs, whereas LEA tryiong to identify the most needy to direct resources too. AS many on here know that leads to many clashes, and dysleia often an area that they clash over.

I went to a speech by Richard Rogers at my DW's graduation. He was called "thick", but he knew in his heart he wasn't and it wasn't until much later he realised he was in fact dyslexic.

If Professor Elliott wants to call the bloke who designed the Lloyds Building, the Senedd and the European Court of Human Rights stupid, then I suggest he tries to design a massive 3-dimensional structure.

"If Professor Elliott wants to call the bloke who designed the Lloyds Building, the Senedd and the European Court of Human Rights stupid"

He hasn't called anyone stupid, or thick, or anything of the sort.

You should read what he's actually written not others' reaction to it and tabloid headlines.

Outraged, agree with everything you've said.

It's a difficult situation. Also I think the media has created the impression that anyone with a diagnosis of dyslexia will need masses of specialist teaching, whereas in reality dyslexia exists on a continuum and some dyslexics won't need 1-to-1 at all (although they do need good teaching, but then so do all children). Of course parents want the best for their children, but it is a problem when the (limited) funding for support goes to support the children of the educated/informed parents who know how to win tribunals (and aren't they just fun, tribunals!!!???) - of course it's not that these chidlren don't deserve support, but I worry about all the others. And it's not a case of 'wicked LEAs'; there is only so much money to go around.

Are you an EP too? I wanted to retrain (am doing a psych degree now, have been a teacher, first Science then SEN) but now the training has changed it's not really a goer .

Angry responses written by people who evidently haven't even skimmed the prof's words actually lend weight to the argument that the dyslexia label is an social rather than a clinical construct.

and what about dyslexics who can read adequately?...my ds has a 'normal' reading range for his age but is notheless dyslexic. His spelling age, and handwriting however...

Ah, Parp!

A school will target reading because it is so essential to accessing the curriculum.

Can I just clarify something - dyslexics don't always have difficulty reading. DD reading age is on average 6/7 years ahead - and not only that the comprehension is at that level too BUT... can't spell, transposes numbers etc.

I agree with previous poster - dyslexia is for when there is a discrepancy between IQ (overall ability) and a specific learning function(s)such as spelling, reading etc.

Well if this guy is right I would love him to explain why the Ed Psych (respected & peer reviewed in her work) measures DS IQ and it is off the scale but his spelling is well below that of his age...hmmm...

Many dyslxics don't have difficulty with reading, it includes all aspects of literacy and can be specifically spelling and/or writing.

Becky you get paid for the 4yrs you are training you know. Usually between £20-£30 thousand whilst training.

x post Noodle, quite agree.

Becky, was that question for me? (S Moo gets all excited at someone expressing interest - am usually champion threadkiller...) - am not an EP, although have worked alongside them for many years now - am (whispers) - advisory teacher..... (tiptoes quietly away holding breath...)

And please, someone, make sure I don't kill this thread!

V - your point about the 'angry responses' - I think IKWYM, but surely people are angry because it's such a high incidence issue and for a parent to feel (even if inaccurately) that someone is casting doubt on the ddifficuties their child is experiencing is very emotive? Doesn't mean that it's a social construct

I know that not all dyslexic children have low reading ages. That's rather my point. A school is surely more likely to target poor readers than good readers who spell poorly? It has a much bigger overall implact on schooling.

I have taught a number of dyslexic children who have had very little input in school, but with special exam provision, such as extra time/transcription/WP (although that is a hot potato in the Times letters pages!) achieve excellent exam results. With good reading and good comprehension they are in a much better position than their peers with a reading age of 7 at age 14.

Selfish Moo -to add to your post just now and to give a bit of balance - DD whilst has advanced reading and comprehension isn't the smartest cookie in the jar...we know that and it why we chose a more middle of the range school for her rather than a top one.

Academic success is not a measure of a persons true potential - especially creative & artistic etc.

I think this Prof does not realise that many parents look at their dyslexic children and make some very very tough decisions about schooling. I am a firm believer that whilst my children are lovely they do not thrive in an academic environment but will flourish in the wider world and not spend their whole lives in one area of life ie school & education....like certain "academics"

It's a lot to do with how we define 'intelligent' I reckon. We are very literacy-focused. I read in the newspaper that this Prof. Elliot has said that reading is actually not linked to IQ. Yet received opinion would certainly argue otherwise. You only have to read some MN threads on early readers . So something which is widely understood to mean that your child is intelligent even though they have trouble reading/spelling/have other literacy problems is a relief.

This is more true for literacy than numeracy I think. Many people are blase about their problems with numbers, but problems reading are viewed quite differently.

I agree with the continuum point. My daughter's was so mild we kept prevaricating (and still do now she's 22) in saying whether she has it or not as the effect it has on her has to be balanced against the negative reaction if she says she has it. Lots of children have it much much worse. She definitely needs extra time in exams and is having it at the moment even at age 22.

Just because some parents are better at sorting out their children's issues doesn't mean that's wrong or that their children shouldn't be helped. It is one of our main duties as parents. If others fail their chidlren that's not our problem, although of course we want all children to have the help they need.

I can see how reading and IQ are not directly linked - but they are part of the overall make up of an IQ. But IQ is not just about taught skills - the ability to think beyond the taught in so many ways, to use knowledge to predict future outcomes, to reason and search beyond the known.

When you meet a child with a high IQ it hits you between the eyes - dyslexic or not.

Yes, bbs, so many jobs these days need reading (and verbal skills). It's partly why boys are doing so much worse than girls. Girls have better skills in the areas we need.