Sidestepping diagnosis

March 20, 2014

In her response to my challenge to the scientific validity of a dyslexia diagnosis (“Time to rethink dyslexia?”, Opinion, 6 March), Kate Saunders reframes the issue in terms of the needs of disabled students and refers to the Equality Act 2010 (“Those with dyslexia need continued aid”, Letters, 13 March).

The trick here is to appeal to the disinterested reader’s natural and humane instinct to support the assertion that students with disabilities should receive the help necessary to maximise their potential. Who could argue with that? I don’t. In her letter, however, Saunders neatly sidesteps my point by interweaving the term “disability” with that of “dyslexia” so that the two become intertwined. This act of fusion is further beefed up by references to discrimination.

I don’t argue against the importance of meeting the genuine needs of those with disabilities (that is, those who find immense difficulty in decoding text and who may need highly specialised IT equipment) but instead point out that the concept of dyslexia and its assessment are wholly flawed. Nowhere in Saunders’ letter is there any recognition of the problems that result from the hijacking of the term “dyslexia” to describe so many different difficulties, only some of which represent a genuine disability that might impair access to degree-level study. Nowhere does she acknowledge the problem of assessments that are conducted by privately employed personnel on behalf of fee-paying customers who themselves benefit substantially from the outcome that is typically sought and usually provided.

As Saunders indicates, there is a shortage of funds for those with genuine disabilities. So let’s be absolutely clear about which sorts of problems require assistance and how help can be tailored to individuals, while avoiding pseudo-medical diagnoses that only obfuscate matters. If we do this, there might be fewer cases of ironic jokes in universities about dyslexia assessments that always result in a dyslexia diagnosis, extra time in examinations offered as an almost Pavlovian response and laptops for all who are diagnosed dyslexic whatever their individual needs.

Julian Elliott
Principal of Collingwood College and professor of education
Durham University

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Reader's comments (1)

Has a dyslexic, am very much offended by Julian Elliot's ignorance and prejudge against dyslexia. While at university I was Disabled Rights Officer and know of a dyslexic student who wasn't given any computer support, her support was tailored to her needs, which did not include a free computer or laptop. If Elliot only educated himself to understand that many student with special needs receive the extra-time, not just dyslexics, such as student with ADHD and ASD, he would appreciate that giving out extra-time to student, for whatever reason, is not a dyslexic problem, but to with the exam board's uniform policy for student's with special educational needs. It is ten years since I was at university, and even then essay had to be typed and the only computers to type the essays on where in the libraries, which were full of noisy student. This was very distracting for me and it seems for most dyslexics as well. Dyslexics are very aware of environmental noise and that is why we receive a computer(with specialist software, tailored to the students needs) so we can work free from distractive noise of other students. Elliot has no empathy with what stress dyslexics endure at university and would prefer to make a joke at the support they so badly need.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Most Commented

Daniel Mitchell illustration (29 June 2017)

Academics who think they can do the work of professional staff better than professional staff themselves are not showing the kind of respect they expect from others

As the pay of BBC on-air talent is revealed, one academic comes clean about his salary

A podium constructed out of wood

There are good reasons why some big names are missing from our roster

Senior academics at Teesside University put at risk of redundancy as summer break gets under way

Thorns and butterflies

Conditions that undermine the notion of scholarly vocation – relentless work, ubiquitous bureaucracy – can cause academics acute distress and spur them to quit, says Ruth Barcan