BBC News article on Dore closures - "alternative therapy warning" valid?

I have to admit that a report published yesterday on the BBC News website touched a raw nerve.

The article, published at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7425743.stm, contained the following warning against "alternative therapies" from the British Dyslexia Association:

Judi Stewart, chief executive of the British Dyslexia Association, urged caution over such alternative therapies, saying there was no cure for dyslexia.

"The BDA recommends specialist teaching, which is multi-sensory stimulated, as these address all of the effects of dyslexia in learning."

Now I am torn by statements such as these. On the one hand, our organisation would agree that there is no "cure" for dyslexia - for the simple reason that we don't see dyslexia as a disease in the first place, but as a thinking style with untapped potential waiting to be harnessed.

Yet there is a key difference between the approach of many "alternative" therapies and the more conventional approaches adopted by the educational establishment.

Generally speaking, conventional approaches are remedial in nature - that is, they see dyslexia, dyspraxia and ADD as disabilities needing coping strategies. They assume that the answer to the problem is to be found in the teacher, and are based around lesson plans, workbooks, repetitive or drill-based activities, learning off by heart, memory tricks and so on. In the best cases, these approaches are based around multi-sensory teaching of the kind that Judi Stewart describes.

Alternative approaches, however, are explorative in nature. They see each dyslexic, dyspraxic or ADD thinker as a unique individual with as unlimited a learning potential as any other member of the human race. They understand that the answer to the problem always lies in the learner. And whatever their theory as to why dyslexia happens, their focus is to team up with the learner to find out why their natural intelligence hasn't - yet - engaged with the learning area in hand.

Alternative approaches are not satisfied with coping strategies. They look for approaches to learning that come easily and effortlessly to the learner because they engage with their natural thinking style and intelligence.

Instead of a lesson plan, they approach the learner with intense curiosity as to how they think and an open attitude to where the exploration is going to go. They have "long antennae" - keen observational skills ready to pick up the very first signs of confusion in a learner as a "clue" to be explored. They have excellent inter-personal skills and will build up a bond of trust with a learner who will then willingly talk about how they experience learning.

This explorative principle is part of why alternative approaches often see a sudden surge of ability in their clients. We have had clients who have progressed from a reading age two years below to two years above their biological age in a space of months. And while not every client experiences change as dramatic as this, there tends to come a "magic moment" in an explorative programme where the answers start to pour forth as to why a particular learning area has been challenging for a person in the past, and how this can now change.

As far as I can tell, few in the media have taken the trouble to speak to actual Dore Programme clients, turning instead to spokespeople from other organisations for comment.

One of the things that has struck us in many of the Dore Programme clients who have been approaching us in the current turmoil has been their staunch loyalty to the programme and its effects. We experience a similar loyalty in our own clients. A number of our Programme Facilitators, in fact, are parents of former Programme clients who decided they wanted to deliver the same benefits to others.

It is easy to use current developments to denounce the Dore Programme and other non-traditional approaches. Yet the media would do well to heed this loyalty factor, and become curious about why it is there.

Richard Whitehead

Note: A number of our clients are willing to speak publicly about the benefits they have experienced. If you are putting together an article or report on non-traditional approaches to dyslexia and are looking for people to interview about their benefits, contact us at info@thelearningpeople.co.uk

Comments

[Fionna]

Hi Liz,

I am not sure that here in the UK we do link dyslexia and dyspraxia. It seems to me that there is very little joined up thinking, or understanding about this.

My daughter's first psychological report was prepared in Ireland. Dyslexia was never mentioned, but isues with auditory processing, working memory, impulsivity and co-ordination were all among the things it high-lighted.

When she was assessed by the Dyslexia Institute (as it then was) after we returned to the UK they also noted issues with co-ordination and said I should take her to my GP to get a referral for this.

Children I have worked with who have had a diagnosis of ADHD have also had specialist referrals through the GP. They have frequently also had issues common to a dyslexia and/or dyspraxia label but have usually had no testing done for this.

It is the view of The Learning People that all these issues arise from the same root, as do many positive characteristics, as you will see if you explore the blog and website. We believe that each individual should be treated as an individual and approached in an holistic way. The client needs to be the leader in a partnership which addresses changes that he or she needs to make.

Neither lumping nor splitting is helpful.

[Fionna]

I think it can be easy to confuse BDA, The British Dyslexia association, with DA, Dyslexia Action.

The BDA is a support organisation, run by and for those who are, or have loved ones who are, dyslexic.

They do not actively teach dyslexics, but provide information as to where such help can be found.

They also actively support dyslexics who have difficulty in getting recognition that their needs are different. Primarily in school, but also in colleges and universities and the work place.

Dyslexia Action is the new title of the organisation that used to be the Dyslexia Institute.

They provide Educational Psychologists to assess for dyslexia and arrange programmes of study aimed at remediating reading problems.

[Liz Ditz]

Can somebody explain to me why dyslexia in the US is not linked with clumsiness or dyspraxia, while in the UK it appears to be?

I suppose one explanation is that the UK approach seems to be "lumping" while the US approach is "splitting" -- a child with reading issues and motor issues in the US would likely have two diagnoses, or labels, while in the UK all the problems would be lumped under one.

[Abigail Marshall]

I am not sure what the BDA is referring to when they warn against "alternative" treatments. I'd note that Judi Stewart's statement that "specialist teaching" methods address "all of the effects of dyslexia" is clearly wrong - I'm surprised she would even say that. The BDA site includes a list of a number of indications of dyslexia that could not possibly be resolved by "teaching" alone, such as: "Excessive tripping, bumping into things and falling over." "Difficulty with catching, kicking or throwing a ball; with hopping and/or skipping." "Poor concentration." See: http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/indications.html

The irony, I think, is that BDA makes the same two key mistakes as did Dore: (1) They adopt an approach that is designed to address only one aspect of dyslexia; (2) They are so steadfast in their conviction of their favored approach that they refuse to acknowledge what pieces are missing. In the case of BDA, they are teaching reading skills alone, without looking at any of the other issues commonly recognized to associated with dyslexia, and their impact on the reading process, such as problems with attention focus, visual-perceptual issues, auditory processing issues, problems with balance and coordination -- all of which crop up again and again, and give rise to the need for the "alternative" methods that BDA disdains. Dore, of course, tried to address the balance and coordination issues, but ignored all the other pieces.

If each merely acknowledged their own limits and encouraged parents to seek out an appropriate combination of therapies, their single-mindedness would do no harm. But when they take the added step of discouraging the other approaches (either with warnings or by exaggerated claims of a "cure") -- then they continue to promote what is, at best, a piecemeal solution to a complex problem.