A brief note about about an article in Hechringer Report (also published in Scientific America). It is attacking the “unexpected” difficulty in reading (in the presence of average or above-average IQ) that has been a part of the dyslexia definition since its first clinical description in the late 1800’s as well as documented through scientific research since that time.
I am opting not to share the link, because controversial articles such as these can attract “clicks” and that are credited in a positive way to the author and site, though contributing actual harm to students through misleading selective presentation of data use of emotionally-charged words.
The title of the article is: “How a disgraced method of diagnosing learning disabilities persists in our nation’s schools.” The article leads with a Tennessee professor whose dyslexia was not diagnosed when he was a child because his IQ did not meet the cut off for discrepancy required at the time. The article also throws its support behind RTI (Response to Intervention), which has been shown in an IES study to worsen the reading outcomes of students with specific learning disabilities (read more here). Dr. Sally Shaywitz and Cecil Reynolds penned their criticism of RTI here.
The article furthermore implies that the current definition of dyslexia may be racist and classist.
My comment on the Hechringer site:
“I’m hoping you reconsider the conclusion and general orientation of this article. I have enjoyed The Hechinger Report’s investigations for years, but this latest article is in my opinion, poorly directed. The dyslexia field has been ravaged over decades by swings of policy that have resulted in excluding students who would benefit from what we now know to be effective interventions – and I have already begun to hear of students being denied support in school that they very much need.
Based on what was shared, Dr. Odegard should have received intervention – and the student who missed by a few points as well. But there is also extensive evidence that dyslexic students identified by a wide discrepancy between ability and reading achievement can have their reading difficulties remediated by targeted intervention as well.
Don’t discriminate against these students. We should be helping all those who would benefit from the help rather than taking away from some to give to others.
Also, from our extensive practice with dyslexic students over the years, the IQ tests – although imperfect – can be extremely valuable. So many students (including those from under-represented groups and poor socio-economic backgrounds) may have their ability and intellectual strengths identified for the first time when they have an IQ test done. These students may have been failing at all the school basics – reading, writing, math – then suddenly it’s discovered there is an unexpectedly high IQ. It changes how the students see themselves, how parents see them, and how teachers see them, and ideally how their schools educate them.
I do know that many students may be beaten down, not understand the idea of IQ testing or be poor at expressing their ideas when they are tested so that test results don’t reflect their true ability – some recognition of these possibilities must also be made – and retest later if possible. But it is a terrible mistake to write off discrepancy as a “disgraced method.” It is not.
Look at all the neuroscientific studies of dyslexia- including the pioneering studies involving fMRI. Almost all that we have learned in the last decade about the science of dyslexia comes from groups of dyslexic subjects who were identified by the discrepancy between a measure of their intelligence and single word or nonsense word reading.
Let’s also learn from the individual cases that get excluded and plan our education on individuals rather than consensus definitions. We should be thinking more about how to help all students rather than to take away resources from some to give to others.
— Fernette Eide, MD ”
It is important that a student not be excluded from reading intervention, if they could benefit, due to arbitrary cut-off defined by policies. Consensus definitions should never get in the way of actual students who have specific educational needs.
It is also important to recognize, too, though, that different levels of IQ among students should have different educational goals and curricula. They may overlap for some teaching, but understandbly not all.
A very similar educational debate occurred some 30 years ago – and the end result for many school districts was that parents and teachers were told that schools did not “say dyslexia” and as a result, students’ educational programs were detached from the wealth of research and knowledge about dyslexia over the past century.
This latest attack on the definitions of dyslexia can lead to invalidating all the hard work that dyslexia advocates have done over the past years – denying the specific existence of dyslexia (and dyslexia-specific interventions), and likely lumping dyslexic students in to RTI programs that delay effective intervention and support.
This has the danger of relegating dyslexic students to becoming mired in one- size-fits all programs that are neither differentiated for their specific needs nor strengths.
Be aware if you are hearing that IQ or discrepancy are unimportant in the identification of dyslexia – they are not.
There is overwhelming research and clinical support for the identification of dyslexia based on individuals with average or above average intelligence and unexpected difficulties, for instance, in fluent reading and rapid automatic naming. Students showing these discrepancies are fairly common in the general school population and recognizing their strengths and weaknesses is essential to their obtaining an appropriate education. The needs of these students should never be considered as invalidating the needs of others.
