The Dyslexia Debate Revisited
The Dyslexia Debate Revisited
by Julian G. Elliott and Elena L. Grigorenko
A comprehensive exploration of what dyslexia is – and isn’t – with recommendations for education policy
The Dyslexia Debate Revisited is a thorough account of the research evidence surrounding ‘reading disability’ and its causes. This is followed by a discussion of how we categorise those who struggle with reading, how the term ‘dyslexia’ is understood, and whether it is useful.
How it’s organised
Chapter 1 introduces the history of the term ‘dyslexia’, the different ways in which it was conceptualised in the past, and ways in which it is currently used.
Chapter 2 reviews evidence for explanations of dyslexia at the cognitive level. The authors discuss phonological awareness, rapid automatised naming, short-term and working memory, auditory and visual processing disorders, and more.
The overriding theme of this chapter is the difficulty in identifying a single, consistent factor that underlies reading disabilities. The authors explain that more recent conceptualisations of dyslexia tend to acknowledge multiple factors interacting to cause a range of difficulties that may change over time.
Chapter 3 reviews the research on the neurobiological bases of dyslexia. The first half of the chapter focuses on studies of the brain, while the second half focuses on genetic influences on reading disability.
Chapter 4 explores how people are assessed for dyslexia, and what the recommendations for instruction and intervention are.
Chapter 5 is titled “Dyslexia: the power of the label” and Chapter 6 is “Conclusions and Recommendations”. These chapters present the core arguments of the book, based on the evidence presented in previous chapters.
Key ideas
The previous version of this book, The Dyslexia Debate (2014), caused controversy in some quarters by suggesting that the term ‘dyslexia’ was not helpful, and should be replaced by ‘reading disability’. The authors’ revised recommendation in this book is not to get rid of the term ‘dyslexia’, but to use it to refer to “a severe and persistent difficulty in accurate and fluent word reading in the individual’s first language” (p. 290) rather than as a diagnostic label.
Elliott and Grigorenko present a range of arguments and evidence to support their viewpoint, so I will just highlight four of the key ideas.
1. Lack of evidence for a subgroup of poor readers that should be diagnosed as dyslexic, in contrast to other (non-dyslexic) poor readers
Dyslexia is frequently conceptualised as an “unexpected” reading difficulty, and the authors describe how notions of what makes reading difficulties “unexpected” can lead to inequitable outcomes. For example, an outdated concept of dyslexia is unexpectedly low reading ability relative to IQ scores. However, IQ scores can be affected by factors connected to socio-economic status, so this approach discriminated against those from poorer backgrounds.
The IQ-based approach was superseded by notions of a ‘spiky profile’, meaning that dyslexic individuals have cognitive strengths in some areas contrasted with relatively low reading scores. But, again, strengths in other areas (vocabulary, for example) can clearly be affected by background, and so this risks under-diagnosis in poorer households.
“Unexpectedness” might also be conceptualised as poor reading performance despite good quality teaching. But, again, this entails that those pupils who have had the bad luck to experience poor teaching would not be diagnosed as dyslexic.
So, attempts to identify a dyslexic subgroup of poor readers on the basis of “unexpectedness” may lead to inequitable diagnosis.
2. A dyslexia diagnosis does not result in different recommendations for intervention
For a dyslexia diagnosis to be helpful to educators, it would make sense that poor readers who are categorised as dyslexic should be treated differently to those without the diagnosis. However, the authors did not find evidence to support this. Rather, although referrals to specialist agencies tended to be made in the hope of advice on how to help a child’s reading, the guidance from specialist assessors tended to offer little that added to what was already being used (see discussion on pp. 242–245).
3. Negative impacts of labelling a subgroup of poor readers as dyslexic
The authors acknowledge that dyslexia can be experienced as a positive label, enabling the learner to understand why they were struggling and feel empowered in the knowledge that they are not ‘stupid’. They also accept that parents who seek a dyslexia diagnosis for their child are doing so in order to help their child to receive appropriate help.
However, Elliott and Grigorenko look beyond the individuals who receive a diagnosis to the implications of diagnoses for the education system and, especially, for the many struggling readers who don’t have a diagnosis.
They argue that an outcome for non-dyslexic struggling readers may be “lowered expectations and reduced teacher efforts to raise these children’s academic performance” (p. 251). That is, a negative side-effect of struggling readers feeling reassured that their difficulties are due to dyslexia rather than stupidity or laziness, is that those who aren’t diagnosed may feel or be perceived to be responsible for their reading problems.
A similar argument applies to resources. A dyslexia diagnosis can be the gateway to additional specialist support or placements for struggling readers. However, in a context of limited resources, this is likely to mean less support for struggling readers without a dyslexia diagnosis. As the authors say (p. 256):
“It is something of a paradox that successful appeals to legislators for increased dyslexia testing and specialist teaching may reduce political pressure to recognize and provide for the needs of all poor readers.”
4. Enabling a focus on assessing for the purpose of intervention, not diagnosis
The authors suggest that there should be no diagnostic cut-off point for dyslexia, and the term should be used to refer to poor readers more widely. This would mean that professionals who currently perform diagnostic assessment could instead assess the language and literacy skills that can inform targeted interventions. It would also mean that interventions would be provided immediately, without the risk that educators may feel the need to wait for a label. Therefore, they argue, dispensing with dyslexia as a diagnostic label could improve the chances for all struggling readers to get the support they need.
Who is it for?
The Dyslexia Debate Revisited is an important read for those studying dyslexia, and particularly for those who are training to perform dyslexia assessments. Whether or not you agree with the authors’ conclusions, they review a huge range of evidence, and their arguments require careful consideration.
Researchers could also learn a lot from the summaries of research from different areas of the literature, and consideration of how research affects the reality of policy and practice.