The Dyslexia Debate: Professor Julian (Joe) Elliott

[debbie]

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6411295

See the top TES letter from the online TES (Times Educational Supplement):

TES letters
news | Published in TES magazine on 7 March, 2014

Last Updated:7 March, 2014
Section:news

The dyslexia label: lifeline or damaging distraction?

It may seem odd that I, the headteacher of a specialist dyslexia school, support Professor Joe Elliott’s claim that the word dyslexic has become meaningless (“Why the dyslexia label may do more harm than good”, 28 February). But dyslexia has come to be used as an umbrella term, covering a whole host of symptoms. Because of this, many people instantly associate any form of reading or writing difficulty with it.

The diagnostic process often determines how severe problems are by measuring how far behind a child is. This results in the assumption that underperformance defines dyslexia, when really it is an inherent difficulty with matching sounds to symbols.

Nowadays, the term means so many things to so many people that it has lost all educational relevance and perspective. Moreover, it encourages a “deficit” approach: focusing on what a child cannot do, instead of finding out what they can do and using this to enable their learning.

Labels can be useful. In this case, however, diagnosis fails to trigger a solution, which brings us to the real problem. If dyslexia is a fundamental difficulty with matching sounds and letters, why does phonics continue to be so prominent in mainstream education? If phonics ceased to exist, so would dyslexia.

Dr Daryl Brown

Headteacher at Maple Hayes Dyslexia School, Staffordshire

I am utterly incredulous at the following statement from the headteacher of a Dyslexia School:

If dyslexia is a fundamental difficulty with matching sounds and letters, why does phonics continue to be so prominent in mainstream education? If phonics ceased to exist, so would dyslexia.

Have I misread and misunderstood what Dr Brown is suggesting?

I take it that Dr Brown is blaming the teaching of phonics in mainstream as causing dyslexia?

Or is Dr Brown making a more general comment that if phonics [teaching? writing systems?] ceased to exist, there would be no dyslexia?

What would Dr Brown advocate in place of 'phonics' or in place of teaching phonics considering we have a phonics writing system?

Would he have his pupils learn the thousands of words or our language printed word by printed word?

I am either totally misunderstanding the point being made in a general sense (that if there was no phonics code to the writing system - or perhaps no alphabetic writing system - then there would be no dyslexics: or if schools did not teach phonics when teaching reading and writing, there would be no dyslexics.??????

And this person is in charge of a school specialising in dyslexia?

Anyway, I've submitted a comment myself seeking clarification from Dr Brown.

[debbie]

Susan Godsland found this link for me which would explain Dr Brown's very strange reference to 'phonics':

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6002967

Well - my kind of phonics teaches pupils with a propensity to muddlement and the English alphabetic code is the English alphabetic code regardless of any difficulties learners have with assimilating it!

Phonics fails dyslexics, says head

News | Published in TES Newspaper on 26 September, 2008 | By: Irena Barker


Expert says method slows down the progress of special needs pupils

Dr Neville Brown, the maverick founder of the successful Maple Hayes Hall special school in Lichfield, Staffordshire, is to publish a book claiming that the drive for phonics is resulting in “abysmally slow” progress for dyslexics.

The award-winning expert on children with literacy problems has condemned the Government’s emphasis on phonics for failing dyslexic pupils.

“There is huge pressure from publishers and pressure groups to put in place a phonics method of teaching that simply does not work for these pupils,” he said.

“There’s a sense that if a child is deficient, you just keep on teaching them phonics. But they make such slow progress that they end up being taken out of mainstream classes to catch up.”

[debbie]

http://www.cea-ace.ca/sites/default/fil ... lliott.pdf

Joe Elliott's paper:

Dyslexia: Diagnoses, Debates and Diatribes

Julian G Elliott

Education Canada Vol. 46 (2)



Really worth reading (short paper)!

[debbie]

A very sensible blog posting at 'Spelfabet' by Alison Clarke - a blog where you can find lots of interesting posting and helpful information - very readable always:

http://www.spelfabet.com.au/2014/03/the ... more-11538

However, a dyslexia diagnosis has the negative effect of firmly locating the problem within the child, and thus absolving the educational system of its contribution.

Reducing the failure rate
The main educational contribution is our universities' and Education departments' failure to train and equip teachers to teach 95-97% of children to read in their first year of school, not just 80-85% of them.

Inside the school system, if they're unlucky, these children can be sentenced to years endlessly and pointlessly studying the 100 most frequent words list, till their self-esteem and willingness to keep trying deteriorates, and often so does their behaviour.

Many end up in the Principal's office, labelled with behaviour problems, and set on a path that leads to the juvenile justice system.

For these kids, having the middle-class kids diagnosed with "dyslexia" is actually a negative, because it helps schools maintain the view that most reading problems are due to child factors, not teaching factors.

This in turn prevents the critical analysis of how the teaching system – teaching literacy in big, indigestible lumps rather than in a fine-grained, digestible form – has helped cause these kids' misery.

One day, early years teachers will teach in a way that prevents most reading failure, and the 3-5% who have persistent problems won't need a dyslexia diagnosis. Schools will routinely target their difficulties as soon as they appear, first in small groups, and then if problems persist, individually.

[debbie]

Interesting commentary via 'The Conversation' site:

Should we do away with dyslexia?

AUTHORS

Anne Castles
Deputy Director, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders at Macquarie University

Kevin Wheldall
Emeritus Professor of Education at Macquarie University

Mandy Nayton
Executive Officer / Educational and Developmental Psychologist

http://theconversation.com/should-we-do ... exia-24027

In their recently published book, The Dyslexia Debate, Joe Elliott and Elena Grigorenko controversially call for the term “dyslexia” to be abandoned. They argue it is an imprecise label that does nothing to assist the children to whom it is applied.

So what is wrong with the term “dyslexia”?

No-one is denying the reality of children’s reading difficulties, or that these need to be identified and treated as early as possible. What is in question is whether we should give the label of “dyslexia” to children with reading difficulties.

It is important to note that reading ability falls on a continuum in the population; it is normally distributed like height or weight. Thus, deciding whether a child does or does not have dyslexia will always involve applying an arbitrary cut-off.

In this sense, a diagnosis of dyslexia is similar to a diagnosis of obesity. It is quite different from a diagnosis of, say, measles where it is clear when someone has it and when they do not.

[debbie]

Professor Joe Elliott responds to a reader's letter:

Sidestepping diagnosis


http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/c ... 16.article

[debbie]

Responding to the issues raised by Professor Julian Elliott, here is a great blog posting by Kevin Wheldall and colleagues (I've added a reader's comment too):

Should we dispense with the d word?

http://www.kevinwheldall.com/2014/03/sh ... l?spref=tw

In their recently published book, The Dyslexia Debate (http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/su ... xia-debate), Joe Elliott and Elena Grigorenko open up a can of worms. But it is a can that needed opening, and we applaud these authors for bringing this important issue up for discussion and debate. Elliott and Grigorenko argue that the term “dyslexia” should be abandoned – that it is an imprecise and unhelpful label that does nothing to assist the individuals to whom it is applied.

So what do Elliott and Grigorenko say, and why do they say it?

[debbie]

Revelations about possible exploiting of the notion of 'dyslexia': the apparent solutions and existing financial systems to address it:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ption.html

Yes, dyslexia wrecks lives. But experts say it's also become a money-spinner for quack therapists and schools - with parents and children falling prey to the dyslexia deception

Fiona, 45, has spent more than £4,000 on trying to tackle her son's dyslexia

She believes there is a 'great dyslexia con'

She thinks increase in children being diagnosed is a money-making scam

By TANITH CAREY

[debbie]

Professor Julian Elliott taking part in a 'guest debate' on the 'mumsnet' site:

Guest debate: Is the term 'dyslexia' actually useful?

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/guest_posts ... al%20needs

[debbie]

A reader refers to Prof Diane Mcuinness to support his view that Julian Elliot 'does not go far enough' with his comments regarding the notion of 'dyslexia':


http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/c ... Y0.twitter

Reading Problems

3rd April 2014

I think that Julian Elliott has not gone far enough in his criticisms of the dyslexia myth and industry (Letters, 20 March; “Is it time to rethink dyslexia?”, Opinion, 6 March). As a practising teacher encountering a number of near-illiterate children, I have not found “diagnosis of dyslexia” in the least useful. It is not merely stating the obvious. The problem is to find some, however elementary, reading level from which progress can be made with a teacher providing careful attention. Problems are caused by a lack of systematic phonetic instruction, and it is therefore disturbing to see this elementary approach so often derided.

But the idea of dyslexia as some sort of congenital disorder seems false. Reading is (like other acts) a human artifice, not something implanted – or lacking – in the brain. It needs to be taught and learned. Giving support to those with dyslexia seems natural and humane, except that they are given the impression that they “suffer from” some congenital (but benign) disorder not linked to intelligence and therefore need do nothing about it, because it is the duty of the education system to compensate for it.

In Why Our Children Can’t Read and What We Can Do about It, Diane McGuinness examines dyslexia and rejects it as a scientific category: “These studies” (she has examined many) “sound the death knell of ‘dyslexia’ and ‘learning difficulties’ as a category of specific reading retardation. The truth is simply that if a child scores badly on a reading test, he or she has a reading problem…” Exactly.

Nigel Probert
Porthmadog

[debbie]

The International Dyslexia Association responds to the 'Dyslexia Debate':

http://www.interdys.org/dyslexiadebate.htm

The word "dyslexia" may not satisfy Drs. Elliott’s and Grikorenko’s standards as a scientific definition. At the International Dyslexia Association we understand the science behind reading disorders. We also understand the power of common language and the mission and purpose it can provide. We believe that "dyslexia" is a beautiful word. True, it describes a category of learning disorders. But it also describes a community, a body of knowledge, a category of law, a more positive sense of self, and a belief about the progress we can achieve together. We will continue to use the word "dyslexia" now and in the future.

[debbie]

Further coverage of Professor Julian Elliott's mission to clarify the issues around dyslexia in the Northern Echo - as flagged up by Susan Godsland via the UK Reading Reform Foundation forum:

Dyslexia debunker on mission to change our education policy

by Barry Nelson

9:52am Tuesday 24th June 2014

I'm routing people through the RRF forum as I've commented about this issue regarding the lack of shared professional knowledge and understanding of our teaching profession regarding initial reading instruction and intervention:

http://rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopi ... 795#p48795

Durham University education expert Professor Julian Elliott is hoping to persuade the educational establishment to bring in new policies to help problem readers. He spoke to Health and Education Editor Barry Nelson

SINCE he published The Dyslexia Debate earlier this year, Durham University education expert Professor Julian Elliott has attracted a lot of flak from critics.

His book – five years in the making and co-authored with a worldexpert on genetics at Yale University in the US – drove a metaphorical coach and horses through the whole idea of dyslexia.

[debbie]

More about the issue of whether 'dyslexia' is 'real' or not via the examiner.com - flagging up Graham Stringer's views on labelling children 'dyslexic' :

Dyslexia: the cover-up continues


http://www.examiner.com/article/dyslexi ... -continues

The following comment, left on an education forum, perfectly expresses the official position of the Education Establishment on dyslexia:

“What causes dyslexia is a scientifically proved neurological condition (see "Overcoming Dyslexia," by Dr. Sally Shaywitz of Yale University). It is not the result of ‘sight words’ or anything other than a brain difference.....Students with dyslexia account for 15-20% of our classroom population, so it is imperative that teachers understand what it is and how to ensure that their teaching is effective. There is excellent information online at the International Dyslexia Association, www.interdys.org (see “Just the Facts”) and Reading Rockets, www.readingrockets.org (see “All Dyslexia Articles” and “Findings of the National Reading Panel”)." Understanding dyslexia is vitally important to the future of 1/5 of your classroom population.”

This is the Party Line. Dyslexia has no connection with how reading is taught. Sight-words are not a factor. Dyslexia is entirely a matter of inborn genetic tendencies. It is very common.

This Party Line, please note, is articulated by the same people who forced Whole Word (then known as Look-say and later as sight-words) into the schools circa 1930, resulting in more than 40 million functional illiterates and, many say, 1,000,000 dyslexics.

This Party Line, please note, says that the Education Establishment is blameless for all of this damage. The real culprit is kids and their defective genes. How convenient.

Phonics experts tell a different story. They claim that dyslexia is extremely rare, found in well under 1% of children. These experts agree that most dyslexia is caused by sight-words. Phonics experts usually report that when children with dyslexia-type symptoms are switched to a phonics approach, the so-called dyslexia fades away.

[debbie]

Letter with reference to Graham Stringer's comments that dyslexia does not exist:


http://samedifference1.com/2009/01/15/g ... -has-done/

Graham Stringer MP is right: dyslexia doesn’t exist and never has done

JANUARY 15, 2009

The root of Graham Stringer’s assertions are probably based in part on the now infamous Dispatches programme back in 2005, in which Professor Julian Elliott made a remarkable claim: dyslexia is impossible to define and test as a discrete condition, and it is therefore impossible to diagnose dyslexia at all. After spending 30 years in this field, he pointed out that “nobody has been able to demonstrate scientifically that there is this subgroup of poor readers that should be termed dyslexic [and] dyslexia, as a term, is becoming meaningless.” Professor Elliott thinks that dyslexia is simply another way of expressing reading difficulty. I’ve read quite a bit of his primary research (which I’m guessing from your post that you haven’t) and it is fascinating work. When analysing the mistakes that ‘dyslexics’ make, some crucial patterns emerge. If, for example, you looked at the reading and writing errors made by a 7-year-old ‘dyslexic’ child, you would see that they bear a striking similarity to the reading and writing ability of a child one or two years younger than them who has no learning difficulties. In effect, children who supposedly have dyslexia are simply working at a lower reading age than their peers. This does not class as a learning difficulty and goes some way to supporting Graham Stringer’s remarks.

[debbie]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10 ... 1a8633ad51

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45:1 (2004), pp 2–40

Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades?

Frank R. Vellutino,1 Jack M. Fletcher,2 Margaret J. Snowling,3 and Donna M. Scanlon1

1The University at Albany, USA; 2The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, USA; 3The University of York, UK

We summarize some of the most important findings from research evaluating the hypothesized causes of specific reading disability (dyslexia) over the past four decades. After outlining components of reading ability, we discuss manifest causes of reading difficulties, in terms of deficiencies in component reading skills that might lead to such difficulties.

The evidence suggests that inadequate facility in word identification due, in most cases, to more basic deficits in alphabetic coding is the basic cause of difficulties in learning to read.

We next discuss hypothesized deficiencies in reading- related cognitive abilities as underlying causes of deficiencies in component reading skills.

The evidence in these areas suggests that, in most cases, phonological skills deficiencies associated with phonological coding deficits are the probable causes of the disorder rather than visual, semantic, or syntactic deficits, although reading difficulties in some children may be associated with general language deficits.

Hypothesized deficits in general learning abilities (e.g., attention, association learning, cross-modal transfer etc.) and low-level sensory deficits have weak validity as causal fac- tors in specific reading disability. These inferences are, by and large, supported by research evaluating the biological foundations of dyslexia.

Finally, evidence is presented in support of the idea that many poor readers are impaired because of inadequate instruction or other experiential factors. This does not mean that biological factors are not relevant, because the brain and environment interact to produce the neural networks that support reading acquisition.

We conclude with a discussion of the clinical implications of the research findings, focusing on the need for enhanced instruction.