Michael K. Meyerhoff, EdD
Your child has been diagnosed as dyslexic. What does that tell you? You may be surprised to discover that all a diagnosis of dyslexia reveals is that a child is having difficulty learning to read.
The diagnosis tells you nothing about why the child is having difficulty, and it does not provide any guidance with respect to strategies for alleviating the difficulty.
The word "dyslexia" is simply a fancy term for "can't read disease." So, if Johnny is having trouble learning to read, he is said to have dyslexia. Why is he having trouble learning to read? Because he has dyslexia. How do you know he has dyslexia? Because he is having trouble learning to read. This is an exercise in circular reasoning that is rather ridiculous.
You may have heard that children with dyslexia have a "loose wire in the brain" or some other neurological dysfunction that makes it hard to process letters and words. But the fact is that despite all the technological advances in examining the cerebral cortex, no consistent abnormalities have been found in the brains of children diagnosed with dyslexia. And while some of these children do exhibit some abnormalities, those abnormalities are also found in many children who are learning to read without any difficulties whatsoever.
You may have heard that children with dyslexia "reverse letters" while trying to read. Again, not all children diagnosed as dyslexic exhibit this phenomenon. And again, many children who are learning to read without any difficulty whatsoever also "reverse letters" and exhibit all the other "symptoms" supposedly indicative of dyslexia.
So why are so many children diagnosed as dyslexic? While I will admit there may be a small number of kids with a genuine neurological dysfunction, I believe most diagnoses are the result of the failure of educational policy to acknowledge and respect some basic principles of human development.
First of all, we know that "normal" children develop at different rates and in different patterns. In addition, we know that "normal" children have different learning styles. Yet schools are designed to teach everyone the same thing at the same time in the same way. And if a particular child is not quite ready and/or is not quite receptive, the school is reluctant to admit that it cannot accommodate normal variations in human development, so it points the finger at the child and labels him "learning disabled."
I'll give you a frightening example. Think about all the skills that need to develop and become coordinated before a child can start learning to read with comfort and ease - everything from the perceptual capacities required to recognize small differences between letters to small muscle dexterity necessary to turn pages to mental abilities that allow for interpreting and processing symbolic systems.
Now imagine two children. One is born August 31, two minutes before midnight. The other is born September 1, two minutes after midnight. These children are born a mere four minutes apart. However, the former will begin school and will start learning to read a full year before the latter because of the district's "cut off" date. And consequently, it is highly likely that the latter will learn to read quickly and easily while the former may very well have a lot of difficulty and receive a "dyslexic" label.
I'll give you another example. There are two popular approaches to reading instruction. One is the "whole language" approach which involves starting with stories, then moving to sentences and words, and finally to the sounds the letters represent. The other is the "phonics" approach which involves starting with the sounds the letters represent, then moving to words, and finally to sentences and stories.
Which is the more effective approach? As any professional in human development will tell you, the answer is, "It depends on the kid." The fact is that some kids learn much better with the whole language approach, some kids learn much better with the phonics approach, and some kids learn better with a combination of the two.
But the school district can only afford one set of textbooks, and it can only afford to send the teachers to one set of training seminars. So the board debates back and forth, whole language or phonics, phonics or whole language. Eventually, the matter goes to a vote, and whole language wins by a count of 3 to 2.
Consequently, the children in the district who are whole language learners will learn to read quickly and easily. School will be fun, and they will do very well. Meanwhile, the children who are phonics learners are in for a terrible time. They will have all sorts of trouble learning to read, they will be labeled "dyslexic" and separated from their peers. They will be sent to a special classroom where they will be required to do over and over again all the stuff they already have demonstrated they can't do very well. This will reinforce their feelings of failure and encourage them to be disgusted with the notion of education in general. It also will reinforce the idea that they are "disabled," "defective," or "diseased," in some way, and that will eat away at their self-esteem making them even more miserable.
Wait a minute. One of the guys on the school board had a change of mind and switched his vote. Now it is 3 to 2 the other way. So, all those phonics learners are going to be just fine. Unfortunately, now all those whole language learners are going to be screwed by the system.
I hate to be so harsh on the schools. There are a lot of well-meaning people working very hard to help dyslexic children. But unless their methods are based on a real understanding and appreciation of fundamental principles of human development, their efforts are doomed to failure and the long-term prospects for the children are incredibly dismal.
In my opinion, the answer lies in de-emphasizing "methods" and re-emphasizing "manpower." When you've got one teacher trying to help 35 kids in her first grade class learn to read, it is virtually impossible to do anything except the "everybody does the same thing at the same time in the same way" routine. On the other hand, when you've got one teacher dealing with no more than 15 or so kids, there is a chance to exercise patience and employ alternative strategies.
When I started school back in the ancient days, I had the same teacher for first and second grade. There were only 16 students in the class, and prior to the first day, our teacher met with our parents. At that meeting she told them, "By the time your children leave me at the end of second grade, they will all be reading. Some will be reading within a few weeks, some by the end of this year, and some not until sometime next year. But relax. I can assure you that everyone in the class will eventually succeed, and no child will be left behind." And she had absolutely no problem following through on her promise.
This may seem like a rather simplistic solution to something as scary as the dyslexia epidemic running rampant through our schools. However, as long as "innovative curricula" and "modern technology" are touted as the answers, I am convinced we will continue to see the number of diagnoses rise. Unless teachers are given the opportunity to customize the timing and techniques of instruction for each individual student, the system will be fundamentally dysfunctional and more and more kids will be inappropriately and unfairly saddled with the "disabled" label.
Michael K. Meyerhoff, EdD, is executive director of The Epicenter Inc., "The Education for Parenthood Information Center," a family advisory and advocacy agency located in Lindenhurst, Il. He may be contacted via e-mail at epicntrinc@aol.com.
May not be reproduced in any format without written permission.
