Why educators need to embrace objectivity and science in our attempt to understand dyslexia
When I began my career as an English teacher I knew next to nothing about dyslexia. But, working in a school with a specialist Learning Support Unit, I had to learn pretty fast.
Incidentally, it was called the Learning Support Department until the problem with the acronym was spotted. Spotted after all the expensive signage had been bought, of course.
I was always struck by the scepticism provoked the word ‘dyslexia’ provoked. For years, I spent parents’ meetings trying to persuade people that it really was a thing. And not just a euphemism for ‘stupid and lazy’.
I think that has largely changed and most people are now persuaded of its existence but, if they were really honest, most teachers would admit to being a bit in the dark about how to help struggling readers.
Recently, I’ve overheard anxious parents being mollified with, ‘It’s really a developmental thing’ which sounds slightly better than ‘He’ll grow out of it’ but isn’t much more helpful.
Or, ‘He just needs a bit more practice’. Practice of what? The stuff he already can’t do?
The problem has been that the evidence around dyslexia just wasn’t particularly objective. Specialists have always had to rely on a student’s observed, symptomatic difficulties and that seems to me rather prone to error, misinterpretation and, yes, prejudice.
For years, it was the best method we had and it’s true that we have built a wealth of experience regarding specific approaches to reading instruction. Many experienced teachers would argue that some of them seem to work pretty well so why we should worry about the internal processes that cause dyslexia?
Historically, there has been some wariness of ‘brain-based education’. It conjures (slightly unfair) associations with experiments from the 60s and 70s - such as the Doman Delecato report into ‘neurologically handicapped children’ which suggested that reading difficulties were caused by brain damage that could be reversed by crawling, breathing through masks and doing somersaults.
Of course, we don’t talk about ‘brain-based education’ any more. Instead, we discuss ‘cognitively-focused interventions’ - which sounds a bit more scientific, at least.
Well, we should worry about the internal processes for some very clear reasons.
Fine-grained brain examination is already providing objective insights into student performance that traditional tests simply cannot give. For details, I’d urge you to read ‘The Neurobiology of Dyslexia’, published in January of this year by Devin M Kearns and his colleagues.
We now know that readers with dyslexia do not just show less activation than non-dyslexic readers overall; they show a different pattern of activation. Their brains are not working more slowly—they are working differently.
In time, we will develop new reading interventions that target the specific brain regions implicated in dyslexia.
Some early research suggests that electrically stimulating these regions during reading can lead to improvements. I know this brings to mind rather alarming images of rows of children wearing swimming caps plugged into the National Grid. We don’t like to think of our primary school teachers wearing lab coats. We need to trust it won’t be like that.
Being objective is the key.
It’s becoming possible and soon it will be possible in every classroom - but we need to embrace it and not be frightened by it.
Comments