"He also believes that the current system entrenches inequality, because children from poorer backgrounds tend to be less likely to be diagnosed with dyslexia."
So if I'm taking away what I should from this article, the biggest problem they have with "dyslexia" is that there's inequality and there's not a good way to diagnose it? In the end they say anyone struggling with reading should get extra help, dyslexia or not. I'm sure they experts know better than I do, but dyslexia seems like SOMETHING more than just having big problems with reading. Even if it's hard to diagnose and that diagnosis is inconsistent and expensive (and therefore not fair) it still seems like a useful diagnosis, especially in school aged kids. My son is taking a second round of tests next week, so I'm in the middle of this right now. It's been interesting, people said "expect to fight with the school" and our school has been GREAT. I guess we got lucky.
It closes with this:
"Back in 1976, Bill Yule wrapped up his Isle of Wight research with the following observation: “The era of applying the label ‘dyslexic’ is rapidly drawing to a close"
(thank you for posting this, oska, it's perfect timing for me)
The inequality is not the root for why they are arguing that we should stop using "dyslexia" but because it they say dyslexia outright doesn't exist.
The inequality issue is that a spurious classification of children that gives access to better resources but is only available to parents that have the time/money/influence to get a diagnosis for their kids. The point is that having a incorrect label is not just a harmless historical idea but something that we should be motivated to eliminate in favor of a more truthful (and equitable) system.
> I'm sure they experts know better than I do, but dyslexia seems like SOMETHING more than just having big problems with reading.
What difference would that be? The article seems to be saying that no-one can consistently diagnose any such distinction, and the same treatments work equally well for people who are diagnosed dyslexic versus "just having big problems with reading".
Some cases of dyslexia are caused by the ear crystals being loose which will cause balance issues and it can be fixed with some balancing exercises. One of the pioneering researches is a Finnish docent called Tapani Rahko who studied the issues back in 2003.
Laugh it up, but it's real. Your utricle contains calcium crystals called canaliths which are basically used by your body as a gyroscope, informing the brain of the angle your head is in. This is why an ear infection or damage to the ear can cause balance issues like vertigo and nausea as the body cannot properly detect the angle you're in. Same reason why we also have motion sickness.
It's closely related to the types of dyslexia that are not caused by cognitive issues, rather issues with the vision.
So if I'm taking away what I should from this article, the biggest problem they have with "dyslexia" is that there's inequality and there's not a good way to diagnose it? In the end they say anyone struggling with reading should get extra help, dyslexia or not. I'm sure they experts know better than I do, but dyslexia seems like SOMETHING more than just having big problems with reading. Even if it's hard to diagnose and that diagnosis is inconsistent and expensive (and therefore not fair) it still seems like a useful diagnosis, especially in school aged kids. My son is taking a second round of tests next week, so I'm in the middle of this right now. It's been interesting, people said "expect to fight with the school" and our school has been GREAT. I guess we got lucky.
It closes with this:
"Back in 1976, Bill Yule wrapped up his Isle of Wight research with the following observation: “The era of applying the label ‘dyslexic’ is rapidly drawing to a close"
(thank you for posting this, oska, it's perfect timing for me)