Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Voices are always raised in opposition to the asking of questions: even the fact that a question could be asked challenges some people to the core. But the asking of questions is the beginning of all learning.

Whatever we call that mixing up of letters and words that some people do (and have a tough time not doing), it seems to me that it certainly happens... so let me ask one more question that I think Will was asking too: is this merely semantic?

Thanks John. An interesting response which helps to point up another important distinction in this debate. A semantic concern is a concern about meaning. This MP is saying a lot more than that. He is saying that "dyslexia" does not exist and the word itself doesn't point top a real condition. It's not that the MP wants to call the condition by some other name; he wants to challenge the medical basis of the condition itself.

William says, "Whether dyslexia is a "medical" condition, or a "learning disability", or a form of words we as a society have developed over time to explain the experience of some people when they approach the task of reading-this debate is a real and serious one."

Yes, real and serious it is.

I have only had a quick read at the comments by Graham Stringer, but a first few thoughts. As someone whose job it is to teach children to read, one thing is clear, some children find it easier to learn to read than others, and yet, and this is one of the important aspects of the debate, in many ways reading is everything. Please do not misunderstand, I'm not saying non-readers cannot be successful, I am saying that reading is usually the gateway to most other forms of learning and in this sense to struggle with reading is 'disabling'.

Another thing which strikes me, by way of a first response, is that there are variety of aspects to the teaching and learning of reading and any number of activities which teachers and pupils might be productively engaged in, and while he is right to flag up the success of phonics (it ought to be used) it is not strictly true to say that synthetic phonics and linguistic phonics are the same.

Children have different learning styles too, and much of the job of teaching is to match the teaching approach to the child's needs and preferences. I, the teacher, am the one who must be informed and adaptable, and the critical point is that we must do all we can to identify any problems which might exist and which are the best ways for any particular child or children to learn.

It might also interest contributers to the blog to note that there has been much emphasis placed on the phonic approach to teaching reading in schools here in NI. The Education and Library Boards have, for quite some time now, been promoting this method, with, it has to be said, a good deal of success.

One last thought for now on the impudence of questions. Asking questions is not impudent, but often on issues like this, people want to grab headlines and the issues are then by default reduced to soundbites and the trouble with soundbites is 'once sound-bitten, twice shy' and the real problems are ignored. Might I suggest then that words like 'magic bullet', and 'fiction' are unhelpful.

I'd instinctively disagree with Mr Stringer, but I think Professor Elliot's remarks are fair enough.

My father, brother and youngest daughter are all dyslexic - despite going to school decades apart, when different teaching methods prevailed they all have the same basic problem.
And, as a trained infant teacher, I know my dyslexic daughter had all her pre-reading skills in place before she started school - it wasn't a failure on the school's part.

Equally, I think Professor Elliot has a point. The way my daughter was diagnosed was by calculating the difference between her language based IQ and how she performed in other areas: if the gap is great enough, you're officially 'dyslexic'. I can't see how that method picks up children who are dyslexic but who don't perform well in other areas.
And the big problem is, as Professor Elliot points out, that the money is tied to the diagnosis. In my child's case, I went to the school with my concerns in March of P1. By P2 she had her own reading group. From P4, the Special Needs teacher was trying to get her officially tested. The Education Board wouldn't test, basically because she wasn't failing badly enough. In P6, we paid to have her tested privately, and she was well into the bottom 1% of the population as regards reading skills. This gave the school ammunition to insist that she was tested by the Education Board, who decreed her 'dyslexic' which entitled her one-on-one help, which pulled her reading age up about three years in the space of a year.

Now that is just a terrible system.

As a parent, I don't care if my child is called a 'poor reader' or a 'dyslexic' (though I think the latter label can be useful in explaining to the child they're not stupid) - but I think a system that only allowed us to access help because we could afford a private diagnosis is unacceptable. And I suspect that the myth that 'dyslexic children are intelligent in other ways' is so ubiquitous not only because it makes parents feel better, but because the method of diagnosis is flawed: if a child is performing poorly in other areas, that would mask their specific reading problem.


(And - just to pick up on another of Mr Stringer's points - I think dyslexic children should have help or extra time in most exams: it's a unique situation because every subject is taught through this one subject. As a tone deaf person, if I had to sing my answers in examinations, I'd fail every subject ever...)

Just a random, slightly off-topic thought - I wonder does Mr Stringer believe in dyscalculia?

I hadn't even heard of it, until someone blogged about her experience of having number blindness. She had problems, for instance, reading clocks or dials.
Seems to me that it's a harder thing to explain away than word blindness - that an intelligent, highly literate woman can't make sense of the symbol '9' looks more like a neurological problem than an instance of poor teaching.

It is difficult to image that anyone in this day could even begin to suggest such an ill informed viewpoint. There is so much evidence of dyslexia and it affects intelligent people in different ways. The problem is not enough dyslexics have access to the kind of help they need and then they have to face ignorant comments on their difficulties. Dyslexics do benefit from excellent teaching and teachers who understand the difficulties they have. However, poor teaching does not cause dyslexia and not all dyslexics are poor readers. Many can read better than the majority but can't comprehend what they are reading. Many dyslexics regard the condition as a gift in adulthood, providing they can survive the education system. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages when they have access to good remediation.

jen_erik highlights one of the most appalling aspects of the machinations of educational system. The process of accessing additional support for children is an intolerably lengthy process. And frankly it's difficult to escape the thought at times that the statistics (how those have become a feature of the new year) are used against people. The 'gap' that jen refers to is really another way of saving money by saying that it is unlikely that certain children will make enough progress to benefit from the investment. And on top of that we have the added ignominy of, as she says, "The Education Board (not testing), basically because she wasn't failing badly enough."

The point then that Julian Elliot (and it is different to the one being sledge-hammered by Graham Stringer) seems to be making is that it is a mistake to link IQ levels with reading difficulties, arguing that resources be directed to all those in need rather than some, and that only after a lengthy diagnostic process. As I said in post 3 having reading difficulties does not mean that one cannot be successful and the relevant teaching approaches need to be employed in a relevant way, and one way of doing this is to direct money available into school budgets, to be spent on children, and away from unnecessary administration.

This is a crucially important job and to the many, many infant teachers across the country who are at the sharp end, the critical beginning of this process, 'hats off!'

There are three points I would like to make.

Firstly the minister is right that poor teaching methods are a serious issue. He is also correct to challenge the concept of Dyslexia. Here is why.

Dyslexia is probably a term for many different kinds of neurological conditions which are all different but all show up as a difficulty with reading, writing or spelling. As such it could be argued that Dyslexia doesn't exist, but is a name for a collection of conitions, some of which are not properly understood yet.

To take an example a mechanic can diagnose tht a car won't start, but what really matters is why? Is it the fuel system the air intake or the battery that is to blame. Unfortunately as humans we are a lot more complicated than a car!

The key is to understand the type of difficulties each indivudual is experiencing. This means expert assessment, and I do not see the education system, politicians or sadly the Dyslexia lobby fully developing this debate.

There is a for more disturbing point upon wich the minister may be right albeit by accident. We teach writing at a very young age in the UK. Young minds are very open to the memories and patterns of the world they encounter. Bad teaching and sloppy diagnosis may lay down poor patterns possibly irretrivably. I see it his way. Inany class of 6 year olds, ten to twenty percent may not be neurologically ready for the level of challenge that they experience in the classroom. reading and writing are neurological complex tasks. Given the risk of bad patterns being laid down can we honestly say in the UK that children with dyslexia are not a product nof our teaching system. The answer is that we can't be sure. Not yet. The question demands our urgent attention.

Hi CrisisSurfer

You make a number of interesting points about the causes and characteristics of dyslexia.

Do you have a particular view in relation to an appropriate teaching method or any thoughts about the Revised Curriculum currently being implemented in our schools, particularly in what is now called the Foundation Stage with its emphasis on play, speech, active learning and reading and writing readiness activities?

Hi Petermorrow

I think that the increasing focus on learning through active learning is certainly a step in the right direction.

If a child is given a range of learning experiences their choices and preferences can often be meaningful. A child that develops an indifference to certain activites may be indicating that they are not ready, or that they havea difficulty organising a response to that activity. When a child is strongly thematic I believe we are being told something. Children are experts at voting with their feet!

The move towards more multi-sensory learning is excellent. The key surely though is to have teachers and professionals who are able to spot the signals that childen are giving in this less threatening early learning environment. This can lead to sensitive hadling of children at an early stage in a non threatening way ad could lead to earlier diagnosis. The medical model as yet are failing to step up to the plate here. For instance Visual Stress (Scotopic Testing) is not available through the state in my area even though it is cheap (£50 absolute max), and some children can be significantly helped with overlays if they test positive.

I feel that the best teachers are failed by a medical model that does not stand up to the responsibility of making differentil diagnosis in children who a clearly struggling.

The children ofcourse are sat risk of suffering a kind of institutional double wammy first in education and then in health. The result poor diagnosis and help that arrives to late and a small but significant percentage who are being expected to learn with methods that do not work for them.

I'm a lecturer at University and it amuses me to find that the description of 'dyslexic' at my institution equates to 'stupid' in anybody else's lexicon. Please don't think I'm being elitist, because two of the most gifted students I've had the privilege to teach were dyslexic, and they were smarter than me, and they both overcame their malady quietly.

As to the question? Certainly there is a Dyslexic industry. I continually have to rearrange my classes to accommodate latecomers to the dyslexic category, often at the last minute! I'm disappointed that my instutution allows the majority to be dictated by the needs (dubious, in my own view) of the minority.

I am indeed sorry to express such an elitist opinion, but what is Higher Education all about, other than evaluating Higher ability? As a lecturer, I am told what I should think before I even see the student, by a bureau which also has not likely seen the student. It's frustrating, to say the least.

Good luck to us all.

Hi arkaye

alas yes there are always those in any industry who wish to turn it into an institution. I am not sure all those working extremely hard in the alleged 'Inustry'should be blamed for this, but we should be very mindful of who is waving our flags for us! Some of them perhaps shouldn't be.

I have two children, both were failing to develop as quickly as their peer group in a junior school that does well in the government league tables. Both have been assessed and found to be Dyslexic. Both had one extra lesson a week at Dyslexia Action (Dyslexia Institute) for three years. Both are now high achievers, each being top of year at senior school in several subjects.
Dyslexia is a real thing. Whilst each Dyslexic is different, they all have a learning difficulty that normal schools and teaching fail to address.

This is an opinion from my perspective as someone who struggled with education, but not due to any lack of intelligence or motivation to learn.
For me, dyslexia describes those kinds of ‘alternative’ coping and learning behaviours. By alternative, I mean those lying outside the accepted norms of our outdated and outmoded education system. For this reason, dyslexia is not a medical condition – just the resulting impact on an individual of not being stimulated appropriately in class.
I think it is no surprise that the level of literacy has remained unchanged at around 25% for at least a decade despite the best efforts of education chiefs and government – the system is not reaching a majority of students, and it is due to the ingenuity of many students to find adequate coping strategies that the figure is not much higher.
I believe that the absence of visualisation and hands-on learning experiences in later stages of education is the root cause – earlier stages are supplemented by more visual/hands-on learning experiences, and there is time for teachers to adapt to students preferred learning styles.
Later stages have less time for these ways, and the time pressure makes it difficult to teach in any other way than auditory as a primary method, supported (often but not always) by visual and kinaesthetic methods.
Any audit or analysis of earning styles is an eye opener - typically a class will have half kinaesthetic, quarter visual and quarter auditory.
In other words, only half of students are being reached effectively during the later stages of education from year 7.
From year 12, students have a choice in how they progress in the world. For me, it was not until I undertook a degree that I really enjoyed learning as much as I did in primary school.
After all – learning has to be fun to be effective.

I was horefied and efended to reed this, as a 21 year old sekond year student at the univertiy of manchester (predicted to get a hiy 2.1 or 1st) the sugestion that dislexer cumes as a mith seems larferbul.

I was diognosed with dislaexer at age 6 in a swiss school (sumthing that was not just put down to it being my sekond langeg). Sints moving back to englen (at age 8) I have been to privet lesons as well as meny difent coreses at both primy and secondary schools. I was forchent to nevere be told that i could do anything and not be given up for it. The emens frusteratioin i exspernted (and sill do) when trying to fill in job aprication forms, to simply trying to reed the news paper is suertely not sumthing that i would choes for a 'finachel benifit' as this MP seems to sugested.

The only reson i could even acess this new was that i was given cmperter soferwher that helps me reed ones i atended univerty. How this gives me an unfair advanteg agest my pieays seems nonsenikal to me.

the faked that i get exster time in exsam and a skibe is of no rely benifet to me, but rather a benifit to thows who mark my exsam and with out it would haved to strugul thow to understaned my nerly ilegabul hand rigting.

This brings me to my sekon pont. The faked that there is hiy ilitersy rates in prison is no suprises, with out the suport of my teches and faimly i would of been unabul to reach the pont i am now. In faked when i resevievned every week for a year not a coment about my work but rather 'work on the speling' by one teacher u simply loos intered and get disshartend. It is no suprises ther for that peopl with dislexer loss interded in the acrodemik system.

If this siystem then lets you down you find ur self in a would basses on reeding, an aplication form infurt of you asking you to 1st reed it then Right in the box. Asking a frend or family menmber can be both embarising and frustrating.

For any edcuated person the link between crym and iltresy shorly is overs, it is not that thay are lazzy and some how dislexer make ur a criminul. Rather thay the structer our sisity is such that with out basik litlysy acess to the job market it nerly imporbuly.

Shourly therfor the ancer is not to call theys people lazzy and the starf that spend whoeres supoting them 'bad teachers' but rather to egnolger the probly and find coping metheds, suport and incuerging a positive metalitly to thows who like me simply will nevere lern to reed and right, but have valubul other skils that would allus us to give a positve conterbustin to sisty.

Give us the tools, take the time and mony to let us, the dislexic polaton, have the same acess to jobs and the taxes we pay and the conterbustion we make to the econimy will pay for its self.


ps. as for the coments mad on litrysy rates elce where, the way langes is consturted verys gratly, some are pirtorly mad up, other use difend logek patens. thesy use difent part of the brain (and difent methos or lerning) therfor to coper ther simply shows his ignerence. maby the 'right onrabul MP' should segseted with cume up with a ently new langes, I would serntly suport that.

Hi CrisisSurfer

Thanks for your thoughts, they make a lot of sense.

This is a dangerous position and one of ignorance. The Minister should take a broader look at the history and research around dyslexia. I would begin to educate his ignorance by asking how a person with an above average IQ can have more difficulty learning to read than someone with an IQ of 90? Lets say that IQ is quite significantly above average - say 130 noting that the IQ level for entry to the old grammar school system was below 120. Could he also explain the problems encountered in learning to read and write by the numerous geniuses throughout history, the entrepreneurs, the artists and those who are able to challenge the way the majority perceive by thinking outside of the "box".

This research is obviously been approached from a very narrow academic perspective and it may have some scientific value in its very narrow field. However it seems that it has been taken out of context to justify an uninformed, political and undoubtedly economically motivated opinion.

This government and the league table obsessed middle classes need to reassess the values they attach to literacy and re-balance its view and education objectives to take account of the contribution made by many exceptional dyslexics to the academic, cultural and economic spheres of society. I think they would find that dyslexics make an enormous contribution which far outweighs their numbers. They would also find that many dyslexics also have a much higher IQ than themselves but one that may not be straight across the board, heightened in some areas and lacking in others, quirks that neuroscience cannot yet explain.

I suggest the Minister starts off by talking to some top academic institutions about the make-up of their student bodies. Winchester and Westminster may be a good starting point followed by Oxford and Cambridge and whilst he is at it perhaps he could also give us the benefit of his uninformed thoughts on Aspergers and Autism.

William, what about an interview with the Sunday Times journalist, A. A. Gill, who is a dyslexic, your colleague John Bennett, did a great interview with him, I was fascinated as I listened to A. A. (Adrian Anthony) Gill being interviewed by John Bennett on Radio Ulster 16/12/2006 quite interesting with plenty of material for further investigation, I was quite interested to learn that he suffers from the same problem as my self ‘dyslexia’ and how he has over come it along with other problems in his life, one aamazing story, one motivational story maybe we could here more.