When I first mentioned last month's dyslexia discussion that I was involved in on the International Reading Association's listserv for reading teachers, I said basically that I agreed with Hugo Kerr that dyslexia isn't a very useful concept at the moment - at least not within the framework of American education.
The usefulness of the concept isn't what drives Hugo's passion, though. But before I get into that, let me refresh your memory as to who Hugo is...
Hugo Kerr is a vocal member of the Reading Teachers listserv (hosted by the Internetional Reading Association). Hugo live in Wales and has worked as a veterinarian for almost 40 years. For the last 25 years he has also been involved in adult literacy (he has an MEd degree). And he has a new book available (for free at his website) that, among other things, provides a "teacher-friendly but properly sceptical scrutiny of dyslexia." Hugo doesn't believe in dyslexia.
I love the way Hugo describes himself in the About Me section of his website:
I love to debate with like minds of like enthusiasms. It has been my experience that great fruitfulness often results. Sometimes heat is generated, but so is light.
If you search the archives of the reading teacher listserv you will find where we've generated some of that heat and light over the past few years.
If you're keeping score, I've conceded that Hugo's position has made me question the usefulness of dyslexia as a concept in American education and I've concluded that his definition of dyslexia is far too narrow to make much sense in the context of the current stage of dyslexia research.
I'm writing this to concede another point to Hugo. He feels that a diagnosis of dyslexia is often a harmful thing. Probably, he'd say it is usually harmful (or perhaps even always harmful). In this recent posting to the reading teachers listserv he calls a diagnosis of dyslexia "pseudo-science" and says of such diagonses: "they do real people real harm." Hugo's biggest complaint seems to be that the adults he works who have been "diagnosed" as dyslexic have often accepted the idea that something is wrong with them, and that they can't learn to ready. He characterizes the result as learned helplessness.
At this point in my professional career I think I agree with Hugo that a diagnosis of dyslexia probably does as much harm as good. Why? Well, first of all, there's so little agreement as to what dyslexia even is. Picture this conversation in the office of a private psychologist that some parent has employed to find out why their child has reading problems...
Psychologist: Ms. Jones I'm afraid I have bad news about Johnny.
Ms. Jones: Oh no. What is it? Why is his problem?
Psychologist: Johnny has dyslexia.
Ms. Jones: Oh my! What does that mean.
Psychologist: Depends on who you ask...
Ms. Jones: Well, what do we do?
Psychologist: I'm sorry, but that depends on who you ask, too.
Ms. Jones: This is so horrible!
Psychologist: It gets worse...
Ms. Jones: How?
Psychologist: You owe me $1,800 for the dozen tests we did on Johnny.
Does dyslexia exist? Maybe. I think the verdict is still out. But there's no clear definition for it beyond "trouble reading" (which is simply too vague), no agreed upon method for diagnosing it (professional judgment usually plays a hefty role in the process), and such a broad set of possible symptoms that no one single instructional method adequately addresses the problems of all "dyslexics." And Hugo's point is valid: people learn to accept that there's a reason for the difficulty they have with reading, and that's counterproductive.
Does that mean all labels are bad? I'd have to disagree with that conclusion. And you can read about my feelings on that issue in Why Labels Matter - Part I and in Why Labels Matter - Part II. While I admit that there is a disconnect sometimes between special education labels and medical opinions, avoiding labels altogether in the educational setting is naive and can result in kids not getting the attention they need.
No comments:
Post a Comment