In years gone by, children who struggled to learn to read and spell were labelled “stupid”, “lazy” or “dim”. Today, children are often labelled as “dyslexic”, but this label may still be a bad idea.
Consider two 9-year-olds reading at the level of an average 6-year-old. One receives a diagnosis of dyslexia, which positively affects her wellbeing. Her teachers now understand she has dyslexia and that she can get tailored help. The other child may not be so lucky. His parents might not be able to afford a dyslexia test—in the UK, assessment isn’t available on the NHS and can cost several hundred pounds. In the US, it could set parents back thousands of dollars.
Alternatively, the second child may have been tested but received a negative result. Until very recently, this outcome was common for already disadvantaged children because the official definition of dyslexia included the idea of “discrepancy” – that reading problems should be unexpected given a child’s other cognitive abilities. Assessing ability using IQ tests can also be biased against those from lower socioeconomic groups or learning to read in a second language. By extension, this second child is just bad at reading or lazy, or both, and not eligible to receive extra help with reading.
Despite trials using a wide range of cognitive processes, researchers have been unable to find meaningful ways to identify dyslexia. The report suggests that instead of waiting years for children to fail and then receive a diagnosis, we should help all children who struggle to read.
Each child has a unique combination of risk and remediation factors, but all will benefit most if we intervene when the problem first shows up. Our newfound understanding of what is happening in their brains even suggests some surprisingly simple ways to help. Giving every child the best possible chance to overcome their challenge is what matters, not the label we attach to them.
