The Dyslexia Debate by J. G. Elliott and E. L. Grigorenko

Buy it from Hive.co.uk and support local booksellers 

The “debate” that this book explores is not whether those classed as having Dyslexia have reading difficulties (and other associated challenges).

The debate is whether there is actually any meaningful difference between those with reading difficulties that are classed as Dyslexic and those with reading difficulties that are not classed as Dyslexic. And further, even if there is a different, does that different result in differentiated responses to the two groups being appropiate or effective.

This is an “academic” text, for 180 pages of discussion the authors provide 80 pages of bibliography, which is indicative of the amount of attention that Dyslexia gets and how contested it is as a concept. As a result the conclusion the authors come to is that there is no coherent common understanding of what separates those “with” Dyslexia from those who also have reading difficulties but are deemed not to have Dyslexia. In the absence of such an understanding the term Dyslexia is found to be of virtually not value in an academic or scientific sense.

In addition the authors find major methodological weaknesses in many of the studies into both the causes and the “treatment” of Dyslexia. In most cases that is little or no evidence that interventions provided to support those with Dyslexia were not equally beneficial to those with reading difficulties who were not identified as Dyslexic.

Even within this careful academic writing you get a sense that the authors are somewhat frustrated with all the time and effort that is being wasted trying to define Dyslexia, which would be better spent working to improve the support of all those with reading difficulties.

I was twice assessed for Dyslexia, once at 11 and then again at 20, and found on the first occasion not to Dyslexic and on the second to be Dyslexic. Therefore the question “what changed?” has been of interest to me and this book helps to explain why the answer escapes me. But this experience also gives insight into why, despite the authors rational argument that Dyslexia as a classification is of no benefit, it will be fought for passionately.

After being found not to be Dyslexic at 11 I did receive support for my reading difficulties, but it was limited and discontinuous (chaotic might be a better word) – and when it got to formal exams no provisions were available from the exam boards (as officially there was nothing wrong with me). But at 20 with my new found Dyslexia, which is counted as a formal disability, suddenly all sorts of support and examination changes were thrust upon me (extra time, new computer etc etc). Had my needs changed? Unlikely, yet support was now readily accessible when it hadn't been before.

And so while we have before us a compelling case for retiring Dyslexia it seems highly unlikely that the debate is actually going to conclude any time soon...