In essence, Elliott claims that the label dyslexia is scientifically questionable and should not be used. In November 2018, the actions of Warwickshire Local Authority reached national headlines because of a controversial document that they produced, entitled “Teaching Children & Young People with Literacy Difficulties Practise Guidance”. This document shifted the focus from the label of dyslexia to reading disabilities, claiming that the diagnosis of dyslexia is not grounded in science. The council faced heavy criticism in the House of Lords; Labour peer Lord Watson said its approach “ignores the science and refuses to recognise that dyslexia is a medical condition”, comparing it to global-warming denial. The guidance was withdrawn and reviewed, but the dyslexia debate raged on.
In November 2018, a formal debate on the matter was held at the Institute of Education, entitled Dyslexia diagnosis, scientific understandings, and belief in a flat Earth. The full debate, lasting just over three hours, can viewed here.
In essence, Julian Elliott argued that diagnosis of dyslexia is inconsistent and scientifically questionable. He argued that since reading difficulties are treated in the same way as dyslexia, there is little added value in the label dyslexia. His opinion is that the practice of diagnosing dyslexia results in inequitable education, because of the popular expectation that a dyslexia diagnosis results in the provision of resources and allowances that pupils with undiagnosed reading difficulties may not receive.
Jules Daulby spoke at the same debate in defence of the label dyslexia, arguing that it is positive and empowering. She voiced the widely accepted belief that a diagnosis of dyslexia provides welcome explanation of the difficulties that an individual has been experiencing. The diagnosis, she argued, also identifies an individual’s strengths, hence providing insight into how to address the difficulties.
The Helen Arkell Dyslexia Charity welcomed the debate. They concluded that there is still much to learn about dyslexia and reading difficulties. In their response, they also argued that dyslexia diagnosis serves to better understand the child in order to target intervention more appropriately. In an interview on Radio 4 in 2019, Professor Maggie Snowling described the debate clearly and defends the existence of dyslexia.
What can we learn from this dyslexia debate?
It is clear from this debate that there is still much to learn about dyslexia and reading difficulties. From my own perspective and experience, there is much value in identifying dyslexia, but even more value in understanding a learner’s strengths and weaknesses, which can be done through more formal standardised assessment. I have worked with individuals with diagnosed dyslexia and seen the impact it has on their lives, as well as the difference it makes to know and understand their learning profile. One 12 year old learner said “It made me realise for the first time I am not stupid. Now I know what I can do to help myself”.
However, I have also worked with many learners who have undiagnosed reading difficulties, whose parents are unlikely to ever have the means or inclination to have them formally assessed. Does this mean they should receive less intervention or support? Of course not. In my own experience, regardless of diagnosis, current education of learners with reading disabilities is driven by needs, not labels, but deeper understanding of a learner’s strengths and weakness in the form of a diagnosis is helpful.
Moving forward, there are some hidden gems of wisdom that we can draw out of this controversial dyslexia debate. Firstly, the need for a child-centred approach to teaching all pupils with special educational needs, regardless of labels. The primary aim of any assessment, including dyslexia assessment, should be to better understand the child and inform teaching. This is good practice for all professionals, including those who assess for dyslexia. Secondly, the allocation of additional support and resources should be based on individual need, not on labels themselves. There is no scientific evidence for a special or significantly different intervention for children with reading difficulties who are also diagnosed with dyslexia.
We should not forget that while this dyslexia debate focuses on reading, dyslexia impacts far wider skills than reading. In fact, spelling and writing are often more of a problem for many pupils than reading, and of course we haven’t touched on memory problems, speed of processing, organisation and the study skills that are required later in academic life. There is still work to be done in understanding the nature of dyslexia; in the meantime, all practitioners can support those who have reading, spelling and writing difficulties, whether known to be dyslexic or not.
