Monthly Archive for February, 2006

Here’s a message I got over the past weekend followed by my response.

>Professor Lloyd,
>My 8 year old son has dyslexia and he attends a [a local] public school in
>Virginia. I am interested in knowing why the public schools do not use the
>word Dyslexia, and why they do not employ systematic researched based
>methods to help those with the diagnosis? Thank you for answering these
>questions.

(a) The answer to your first question is pretty straight forward. “Dyslexia” is not an educational label, but one used in medicine and the popular press. Dyslexia is one of the disabilities included in “Learning Disabilities.” Learning Disabilities is the category of special education services that allows children with severe problems in reading (what others might call “dyslexia”), arithmetic or mathematics, writing, or other areas to received special education services under federal and Virginia law. Has you son been identified as having Learning Disabilities by the Henrico schools? Who has diagnosed dyslexia?

(b) The answer to your second question is very difficult. I would like to know that answer, too. Although some would dispute it, I think we have very clear evidence about what instructional methods and practices have been scientifically shown to produce better outcomes for students. I have spent most of my adult life describing those methods and practices to teachers, administrators, and colleagues. Still, people seem to chose instructional methods not on the basis of what has been shown to benefit learners, but on other bases. Before I retire, I hope to have a bigger effect on this problem than I have had in the past 30+ years.

I caution you to listen carefully when people say that they are using scientifically documented or “research-based” methods. Some methods that are quite popular have only modest evidence of benefits. It is possible to argue that a method has a scientific basis, but to point to less-important types of research as that basis. One needs to know whether the scientific evidence is expressly connected to student outcomes (e.g., direct comparisons showing that in real school situations a method or practice produces better outcomes on relevant and important measures of student achievement), not that it is “consistent with developmental theory,” “endorsed by such-and-such-group-of-educators,” etc.

Please suggest alternative responses, dear reader.