News on dyslexia - dyslexia matters

Dispatches - The Dyslexia Myth, Thursday 8th September, 2005

"We are not saying dyslexia is a myth, we are saying the popular conception of dyslexia is a myth and that dyslexia itself needs to be redefined in a much more rigorous way" David Mills (Producer) Channel 4
Quote from Channel 4 Webchat http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/D/Dispatches_-_Dyslexia.html

"...since dyslexia is not encompassed wholly by reading, acquiring reading does not solve dyslexia or render the term redundant or place it in the realms of an ‘emotional construct’."Susan Tresman (Chief Executive) BDA
Quote from British Dyslexia Association website http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk

"The programme implies that dyslexia describes a child with poor reading ability with high IQ. This is untrue, dyslexia affects people regardless of IQ."
Response from the Dyslexia Institute website http://www.dyslexia-inst.org.uk/responsetoch4TV.htm

Comment from Dr Chris Singleton - University of Hull
"The Channel 4 programme entitled 'The Dyslexia Myth' was more balanced than expected, given the media hype prior to transmission. But it was a strange concoction of sound science, disappointing ignorance and unwarranted conclusions. It is also apparent that by the title and the general stance of the programme that the producers intended to stir up controversy.

What was the sound science? The observations regarding the genetic basis of dyslexia and the fact that early teaching using structured multisensory methods that focus on phonological skills and synthetic phonics is beneficial not only to children with dyslexia and other poor readers, but, actually, for all children. Maggie Snowling is right when she says it is a disgrace that we have known this for over a decade and yet such teaching is still not generally available. The point was also well made that the scientific basis for exercise-based treatment of dyslexia (Dore/DDAT method) was highly dubious. Peter Tymms and others pointed out that the National Literacy Strategy is failing many children and that standards in literacy are not rising in the way that the government to would like us to believe.

What was the disappointing ignorance? First, the confusion between visual stress and dyslexia and the implication that using coloured overlays or tinted lenses is of no help to children with reading difficulties. If the producers of the programme had talked to a few experts that knew about vision and reading (as opposed only to the several experts on the programme who knew about language and reading) they would not have made that mistake. Let's be absolutely clear: colour is not a treatment for dyslexia, but in many cases it can be a suitable treatment for visual stress (aka Meares-Irlen syndrome), which is a different condition. Work by Arnold Wilkins, Bruce Evans and others has shown that susceptibility to visual stress is surprisingly common (15-20% of the population) and affects dyslexics and non-dyslexics, making reading an uncomfortable or even unpleasant visual experience for them. Recent research suggests that although visual stress and dyslexia are not connected causally, the effects of visual stress are exacerbated in people who also have dyslexia and so it seems more common in dyslexics. Use of coloured overlays does not fix a reading problem but if the child suffers from visual stress when reading this will disrupt their development and counteract any remediation they are receiving for their reading problems.

Second, ignorance about how to identify dyslexia, as proclaimed by Professor Julian Elliott of the University of Durham. Although it is not altogether surprising that an ex-educational psychologist does not know how to identify dyslexia, it is arrogant and professionally unjustifiable for him state that because he does not know how to recognise a child with dyslexia then anyone else who claims to be able to do so must be mistaken. There is plenty in the research literature on this and Prof Elliott (who claims to have reviewed the literature) should have taken the trouble to investigate it. However, it should be noted that Elliott's area of expertise is children's thinking skills and he has no publications on dyslexia or reading difficulties. On what basis, therefore, does he present himself as an academic authority on reading difficulties?

What were the unwarranted conclusions? The main message of the programme was that dyslexia is a myth because poor phonological skills can underlie the problems of many types of poor readers, and because the best methods of teaching are suitable for all children. This conclusion is unjustified because it overlooks the fact that dyslexia is more than just a reading difficulty. Dyslexia is characterised by problems with memory and speed of information processing as well as in phonology and reading. This conclusion is also dangerous because dyslexic children who are very bright (and, despite the implications in the programme, there are some of those) and who (with a struggle) are managing to read at an average level for their age would not be regarded as having any difficulty. They would not receive any help, even though they will not be performing up to their potential. Experience shows that without help such children are likely to fall behind their peers as they get older."

All children with, or at risk of, reading and writing difficulties need appropriate intervention as early as possible. But to regard them as all having essentially the same problem is to deny the results of over a century of scientific research.

Response from Prof. Maggie Snowling - University of York
"There is strong scientific evidence concerning the nature, causes and consequences of dyslexia ... its potentially negative effects can be ameliorated."

As a Vice President of the BDA, I am saddened by the confusion and upset that has followed from the recent Dispatches programme entitled, 'The Dyslexia Myth'.
Read Prof. Snowling's full statement: http://www.bda-dyslexia.org.uk/news.html