|
The Dyslexia Debate Revisited| title | The Dyslexia Debate Revisited |
|---|
| start_date | 2024/05/21 |
|---|
| schedule | 16h-18h |
|---|
| online | yes |
|---|
| visio | https://forms.gle/gYoE9dWLwPZettXC9 |
|---|
| location_info | on Zoom |
|---|
| summary | Despite massive researcher, practititioner, legislative, and lay interest in dyslexia spanning more than a century, there remains significant uncertainty as to how to best define and operationalise this construct. In 2014, Elliott & Grigorenko published “The Dyslexia Debate” which concluded that conceptual confusion, inappropriate operationalisation and assessment, and resultant inequities were such that it would be more helpful to cease using this term and instead refer to reading disability. A decade later, a new book by these authors “The Dyslexia Debate Revisited” returns to this debate. The presentation will explain why continuing the use of clinical diagnoses of dyslexia is scientifically, educationally, and ethically unacceptable. Research has shown that those who are diagnosed dyslexic are significantly more likely to live in economically advantaged communities and attend high performing schools. This imbalance results in a disproportionate allocation of resources and accommodations that particularly fails to meet the needs of ethnic minority and working class children. I will argue that, rather than prioritising a small proportion of so-called dyslexic individuals, attempts should be made to identify and cater for all struggling readers. An alternative, more equitable, approach will be outlined. |
|---|
| responsibles | Prado, Morel |
|---|
Workflow history| from state (1) | to state | comment | date |
|---|
| submitted | published | | 2024/05/16 13:00 UTC |
| |
|