On the dyslexia topic that Stephen raised on 22 January, he wrote: > It seems a huge controversy has develloped concerning the view of the > British educational psychologist Julian Elliott that dyslexia as an > identifiable disability requiring special intervention is a myth.
Im not sure there is a huge controversy. The Channel 4 TV programme was broadcast in September 2005. Since then I cant recall reading anything more about it. Now a government minister has acknowledged that she chose a specialist private school for her boy as he supposedly has dyslexia and she was not satisfied with his progress in the local State school. This gave the producer of the TV programme, David Mills, an opportunity to write the article that Stephen cited. But the fact that a TV producer felt he needed to highlight Elliots thesis nearly 18 months after the programme suggests that controversy has *not* raged since that time. From a google search it seems that everything to do with "Julian Elliot" + "dyslexia" is linked, directly or indirectly, with that programme. This ties in with the following from Stephen: > I haven't, however, been able to dig up an academic publication of > Elliott's on the topic. Incidentally, I do recall seeing the TV programme back in September 2005. I cant remember anything much of the details, only that I came away from it unconvinced that he had really made his case that dyslexia is a myth, although it may well be that it is overdiagnosed to cover too many cases of severe reading difficulties. But I really don't have enough knowledge of the subject to have a definite opinion one way or the other. Re Paul Brandons quotation of Sally Shaywitzs views on the subject (see below), I see that she doesnt reject the term "dyslexia": *Overcoming Dyslexia* (2005), by Sally Shaywitz - What dyslexia is and why some intelligent, gifted people read slowly and painfully - How to identify dyslexia in preschoolers, schoolchildren, young adults, and adults http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679781592 Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org/ -------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:42:33 -0600 Author: Paul Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Is dyslexia a myth? > > Going back a few years, see: > > Evidence that dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal > distribution of reading ability > SE Shaywitz, MD Escobar, BA Shaywitz, JM Fletcher, and R Makuch > NEJM Volume 326:145-150 January 16, 1992 Number 3 > > Abstract > > BACKGROUND. Dyslexia is now widely believed to be a biologically > based disorder that is distinct from other, less specific reading > problems. According to this view, reading ability is considered to > follow a bimodal distribution, with dyslexia as the lower mode. We > hypothesized that, instead, reading ability follows a normal > distribution, with dyslexia at the lower end of the continuum. > METHODS AND RESULTS. We used data from the Connecticut Longitudinal > Study, a sample survey of 414 Connecticut children who entered > kindergarten in 1983 and were followed as a longitudinal cohort. > Dyslexia was defined in terms of a discrepancy score, which > represents the difference between actual reading achievement and > achievement predicted on the basis of measures of intelligence. Data > were available from intelligence tests administered in grades 1, 3, > and 5 and achievement tests administered yearly in grades 1 through > 6. For each child there were 108 possible discrepancy scores ([3 x 3 > years] x [2 x 6 years]) based on combinations of the ability scores > (full-scale, verbal, and performance IQ) in each of three years and > two achievement scores (reading and mathematics) in each of six > years. We demonstrated that each of the discrepancy scores followed a > univariate normal distribution and that the interrelation of two > different discrepancy scores followed a bivariate normal > distribution. At most, only 9 of 108 discrepancy scores (8.3 percent) > and 171 of 3402 pairs of discrepancy scores (5.0 percent) were > significantly different (at the 5 percent level) from the expected > scores--well within the expected values for data with univariate and > bivariate normal distributions, respectively. We also examined the > stability of dyslexia over time. The normal-distribution model > predicted (and the data indicated) that only 7 of the 25 children (28 > percent) classified as having dyslexia in grade 1 would also be > classified as having dyslexia in grade 3. CONCLUSIONS. Reading > difficulties, including dyslexia, occur as part of a continuum that > also includes normal reading ability. Dyslexia is not an all-or-none > phenomenon, but like hypertension, occurs in degrees. The variability > inherent in the diagnosis of dyslexia can be both quantified and > predicted with use of the normal-distribution model. > > Of course, it IS by Sally Shaywitz .... PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * > > At 8:53 PM -0500 1/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >It seems a huge controversy has develloped concerning the view of the > >British educational psychologist Julian Elliott that dyslexia as an > >identifiable disability requiring special intervention is a myth. > > > >I love mythbusters. And I've always suspected something of the sort about > >dyslexia as well, although I could never have expressed it as > >articulately and persuasively as Dr. Elliott does. It appears, not > >surprisingly, that parents of dyslexic children are not too happy with > >his idea. > > > >The Telegraph just last week published an article by David Mills on the > >controversy, on-line Jan 15, 2007, "Dyslexia: a big, expensive myth". > > > >http://tinyurl.com/2lgo98 > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2007/01/15/hdysle > >xia15.xml&page=3 > > > >And an earlier and probably more informative article was published two > >years earlier in The Guardian by Joanna Moorhead (September 7, 2005) > > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/parents/story/0,,1564251,00.html > > > >There's also a short version of Elliott's views in TES ( Times > >Educational Supplement, right?), September 2, 2005: > >"Dyslexia myths and the feel-bad factor" > >http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2128733 > > > >I haven't, however, been able to dig up an academic publication of > >Elliott's on the topic. --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
