Yes, it is possible that a child with a global delay, an overall IQ of say 75 to 78, may also have dyslexia. Maybe the same percent of them has the same specific neurologic issue as do the normal intelligence population, something like 5% (depending on how defined), so their relative IQ for reading would be something like 53, 1.5 SD below their global IQ.
And?
To use your attempted analogy - it is more like you have a bunch of kids who can’t walk. Some of them can’t walk, can’t move their arms, can’t speak clearly, and can’t understand much of what you say to them. Some can do everything else but walk. Would you say that there is no importance in distinguishing between the two groups? Would expect both groups to have the same exact cause? Do you think both groups should have the same exact interventions?
Then you’re retracting what you said before about IQ being part of the very definition of dyslexia?
Since Carmady (and I and the OP I think) are offering an analogy to explain what it is we are saying, it is not to the point for you to draw a new analogy.
If you see a bunch of kids with broken legs, the thing to do is fix the broken legs. IQ is irrelevant.
The claim in this thread is that if there is a neurological issue underlying dyslexia, the thing to do is treat the neurological issue, and IQ is irrelevant.
There may be other interventions necessary for people who also have low IQ, but that’s irrelevant to the question of how to treat the underlying neurological issue behind the dyslexia itself.
This is not to say any of this can be determined true a priori. The claim is an empirical one. Apparently the documentary (which I haven’t seen) gives some empirical evidence that there is indeed a single underlying neurological issue, and that it can be treated in the same way for all sufferers regardless of IQ.
BTW I’d take issue with the claim in the documentary that dyslexia doesn’t exist. Rather, it seems to me the documentary is offering evidence that dyslexia can exist in people with a wide variety of IQ’s rather than just normal-to-high IQ’s.
That is, unless the deficit identified in the featured study is one that is already known to be something different than that underlying dyslexia.
I used to tutor this kid in English and he could never learn how to spell a single word. He would always mix up the order of letters and add/subtract letters which never made sense. Would spell the same word differently each time. I tried to teach him to write three and four-letter words for over six months - no luck. And yet he wasn’t “stupid” or anything. I can’t say cause I’m not a professional, but it does seem to me that something was going on there.
My wife is dyslexic. She often has problems spelling words - in some cases, she can’t even puzzle out enough of the spelling to get close enough for spellcheckers and dictionaries. She grew in a time when it was assumed that her problems with reading were just because she was stupid, but following her participation in an extremely detailed assessment (as a university student) it was determined that 1) yes, dyslexic, and 2) she has an IQ of 161.
She now has a PhD. I had to do a lot of proofreading of her texts - all 600 pages! - but the dissertation was all her own.
Julian Elliot, the educational psychologist featured makes the point that either all kids with reading difficulties are dyslexic or none are. He objects to the fact that one group are hived off as dyslexic and, because they have parents who know how to work the system, they get additional help. Another group get nothing.
However in places where an emphasis has been placed on identifying all kids with reading problems, without benefit of a diagnosis, all the children improve at rates 7 to 8 times faster than the rates achieved by dyslexic specialty treatments.
Someone makes the point that 500,000,000 pounds has been spent on dyslexic programs with no reduction in the rate of reading problems. They feel this money could be better spent by getting it all to the front line.
Interestingly the documentary ends with the head of the Dyslexia Institute agreeing with the findings of recent research and stating that the principles are being adopted in their programs.
Mind you I did find the 50 minutes to actually watch it.
Slight hijack - but what the hell is that meant to teach anyone!? Apart from how to memorise and regurgitate stuff. No wonder that kids get put off literature, especially if they have learning problems, such as dyslexia. Which of course, does exist.
That is exactly his point. Choosing the one’s with a high IQ and calling them dyslexic and calling the rest “slow” is futile. You can identify all the kids who will have difficulty learning to read in a 5 to 10 minute face to face test. If you treat them all, they all improve.
As I say I watched the documentary and could see the argument they were making, although the title may be unfortunate. But I also read DSeid’s link and was amazed by this:
*Depending on the definition chosen, 5% to 17.5% of people in the United States have a learning disability, with an estimated 2.6 million children aged 6 to 11 years affected…
Approximately 80% of people with learning disabilities have dyslexia.*
So 4 out of 5 kids in the USA with learning disabilities have above average intelligence? Really? I get 10,000 US kids doing poorly in school and 8,000 are the smart kids.
And the point is that not everyone with the same reading level has dyslexia any more than everyone who cannot walk has a broken leg. Some here seem to be seeing a bunch of people who cannot walk and wanting to put the same cast on everyone, whether they have a broken leg or not.
Ooops, you say I can’t draw a new analogy. It’s “not to the point”. So no analogy.
Leave it then: a person who cannot read as part of a global delay of 1.5 S.D. or more is different than someone who cannot read as a specific 1.5 S.D. or greater deficit
BTW, if you haven’t seen the documentary, then it seems odd to take issue with someone else’s take on what it says.
My issues to take have been with the argument as presented in the op. The premise seems to rest on the claim that the point of “getting this label” is to “gain the services of special education” but that “these services have not been shown to work”, yet “identifying kids with this neurological handicap in pre-school/kindegarten and pulling them out of class for 35-40 minutes every day to help them hear and replicate certain sounds … As the kids get older, the special teachers focus on not only helping the kids become better readers, but to better appreciate reading …” works.
Again, for all I know the British education system is doing some weird shit for what they label as dyslexia. And not providing reading help for kids who are more globally delayed. But the mainstream scientific understanding of developmental dyslexia, at least in languages like English, is that it is usually caused by a phonologic coding deficit (“this neurological handicap”) and the usual special education services do what that program describes (increasing awareness of, recognition of, and thereby the coding of different phonemes) except that there is no program to identify and intervene that early. So those gained special education services do seem to work and earlier intervention than what is normally done may work better.
If the documentary state that a popular understanding of dyslexia as a vision disorder that caused letters to look reversed and should be treated with vision therapy does not exist then I will agree completely. If the documentary argues that kids with specific phonologic coding deficits should get identified early and have early intervention - before they even could be labeled as being 1.5 SD behind or in any other way labeled as “dyslexic” - then I would also agree. If only such was done. If they argue that all kids with reading delays deserve services no matter if it is a specific delay or part of a a more global learning issue, then I agree. If it is just frustration that some parents are able to advocate for their children more effectively than others and that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, then I understand.
But if it says that dyslexia does not exist and that there is no role for go-around tactics to help deal with the disability in older children and that children with a specific learning disability should be treated the same as children who have global delays, then I would argue with those points.
Well, if you watched the documentary it would only argue with your last point. They seem to believe that the same improvements can be achieved over a wide range of disabilities. Other than that you are saying what they are saying. They just think the distinction between dyslexic and not dyslexic is pointless it doesn’t help improve outcomes.
No, what that means is that most kids with specific learning disabilities are in the normal intelligence range or above and that specific reading disability is by far the most common specific learning disability.
Any mental condition which has a specific test to consistently define a consistent pattern has a self-fulfilling nature. Dyslexics can be diagnosed by those tests with reasonable consistency and therefore dyslexia does “exist” as a condition–literally, by definition.
Because the wiring of the brain is so complex, almost any condition related to the function of it exists along a spectrum from minimally impaired to severe, and because nearly any physical or mental handicap that’s hardwired genetically can be improved with maximal nurture (versus no directed intervention at all) there’s a reasonable effort to intervene where possible.
Dyslexia in particular has a secondary attraction. It can be considered a mental disability without being considered a diminution of “intelligence” per se. That’s huge if you look at the psychology of it. It means you aren’t “stupid,” you just have a tiny bit of unfortunate genetic mis-wiring. So now we have the perfect diagnosis for the slow learner who is otherwise advantaged by life’s circumstance: He’s a bright kid with high intelligence who has a reading disability. This is a fabulous combo. In practice it means that wealthier communities can hire more folks to diagnosis this (and other conditions) and gain every possible advantage without using the “low IQ” or “Mentally Retarded” words.
"Last year, 47,000 SAT exams were given with special accommodations. The vast majority are not controversial. They involved students with well-documented learning disabilities. For example, a dyslexic teenager may get time and a half, or four-and-a-half hours, to plow through the three-hour test because he reads so slowly.
But a growing number of cases – hundreds and perhaps thousands – involved what one college official calls “upper-income game players” who believe extra time can provide a crucial boost in their scores. “It is a way for rich white kids to create a minority niche for themselves,” said Paul Kanarek, who runs SAT preparation classes in Southern California. “I don’t see many kids from Compton getting these kinds of luxurious diagnoses.”
Indeed, although only a tiny fraction – 1.9% – of students nation-wide got special accommodations for the SAT, the percentage jumps fivefold for students at New England prep schools. At 20 prominent north-eastern private schools, nearly one in 10 students received special treatment.
And of course, as DSeid points out, early diagnosis and intervention absolutely make a difference. If I had had such diagnosis and intervention for my golfing disability, my handicap would be closer to scratch than 8. Alas, no such golf-ability screening exam was administered during my youth, Mother Nature gave me a pretty ordinary baseline set of golf genes, and here I am just another golfer prevented from reaching my full potential because of the lack of proper diagnosis and screeening.
Wouldn’t matter. My plan when I become King of the World is to kill everyone who plays off single figures. Won’t the PGA tour become interesting then? The best golfer in the world will be some 12 handicapper from Mission Viejo that we have never heard of.