\
by
15
relevant to dyslexia and the current legislation would be an emphasis on the science of reading instruction. As noted by Shanahan (2020), the current body of reading research is lacking in the evidence base of instructional studies. This is important as highlighted by Shanahan (2020) and Gabriel (2020b), because evidence from medical studies conducted within a lab does not equal evidence for effective reading instruction that occurs within actual classrooms. Limiting our understanding of the science of reading to one type or design of research known as basic research studies conducted by a limited number of fields (i.e., cognitive sciences and neurosciences) does all readers and teachers a disservice. What is known about reading and reading instruction continues to evolve across 200 plus years as a result of different types of research studies and significant contributions made by many fields. The editors of the Reading Research Quarterly (RRQ) compiled articles within two special issues dedicated to understanding the science of reading through a broad and inclusive lens in hopes of informing next steps for the field (Goodwin & Jimenez, 2020; Goodwin & Jimenez, 2021). The authors of this article believe teachers have much to add to the conversation about SOR and dyslexia and stand to benefit from an accurate understanding of key terms and concepts used throughout the SOR and dyslexia movement.
Dyslexia and the Science of Reading
Throughout their narrative, advocates pair dyslexia with the science of reading (Gabriel,
2018b; Gabriel, 2020a; Johnston & Scanlon, 2020; Shanahan, 2020; Worthy et al., 2017). This is done to lend legitimacy to the specific brand of reading instruction they promote and use to convince legislators to enact it into law. It is important to understand how advocates define dyslexia and their related instructional beliefs as the narrative surrounding the dyslexia movement and current legislation depends on the acceptance of its definition. The legislation uses the definition put forth by the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) as follows:
Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge. (2021)
Use of a singular definition across multiple states legislation implies consensus exists across fields when, in fact, it does not (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014). Those within the fields of education, medicine, psychology, communications and more agree that problems exist with how dyslexia is defined, because most definitions are vague and do not provide useful information necessary to distinguish between a “garden variety” struggling reader and someone who is dyslexic (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014; Johnston & Scanlon, 2020; Stanovich, 1994). Simply noting dysfluent reading, poor spelling, decoding challenges, and issues with phonological awareness within a definition is extremely broad and not exclusive to challenges due to dyslexia (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020). Reading teachers would agree that these characteristics could describe a lot of beginning readers facing a wide range of possible challenges. One might assume advocates intentionally cast a wide net in order to fit their narrative that 1 in 5 students or 20 percent of the general population experiences challenges due to dyslexia (Gabriel, 2018). They believe that problems learning to read result from an under-identification of dyslexia and failure to receive a specific type of beginning reading instruction. This is far greater than what the research supports (Elliot, 2020; Peterson & Pennington, 2012; Snowling et al., 2003)
Gabriel (2018a) examined the definition of dyslexia in light of advocate’s intentions to create the need for legislation. She posits three key branding tactics used by advocates to promote their narrative that describes dyslexia as: a) neurobiological, b) continuum-based, and c) “coupled” with creativity (Elliot & Grigorenko, 2014; Gabriel, 2018). Her close examination of how dyslexia is defined notes specific ways advocates are able to rebrand this vague, confusing, and seemingly rare construct. First, by branding it as neurobiological instead of cognitive or behavioral in nature, Gabriel (2018a) argues that advocates are able to point to proof (i.e., brain scans) that it exists, thus debunking claims that it is a vague construct excluded from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Second, Gabriel (2018a) notes that by making dyslexia continuum-based it becomes recognizable like other familiar spectrums such as attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder (ADHD) and autism. This continuum analogy also makes dyslexia appear to be more commonly occurring, creating the perception that everyone could be “a little bit dyslexic” and fall somewhere along the continuum (Gabriel, 2018a). Third, by connecting dyslexia to positive associations and individuals who are creative and high performing with above average intelligence, Gabriel (2018a) states that advocates are able to normalize it and differentiate it from the negative associations thought of when describing “struggling readers” and more general reading challenges. References to IQ and other factors used to diagnose dyslexia based on environmental and economic issues invite subjective perceptions and raise concerns of equity (Elliot, 2020).
Advocates have been successful at rebranding dyslexia and having their concerns heard by legislators. They believe that reading difficulties are the result of an under-identification of students with dyslexia and the failure of schools to provide them with the type of instruction they believe is needed (Gabriel, 2020a). Across popular and social media platforms, advocates have been vocal in their criticism of teachers and teacher educators pointing to “dis-teach-ia” not dyslexia as the “problem” and the dyslexia laws as the “solution” (Gabriel, 2018a). At the heart of what advocates promote as the “answer” is a specific approach to phonics instruction (explicit, systematic, synthetic, multi-sensory approach) using “structured literacy” lessons, despite lack of evidence that this approach is superior to all others (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020; NRP, 2000).
.