Sally Shaywitz book signing

Her contention that 20% of students are dyslexic has unbelievable ramifications in the South - where poor teaching and lack of exposure to the written word has created an inordinate number of disabled African-American (and others) readers. I have indeed read in the book where she divides dyslexics into two groups - social and physiological - under the classic definition of dyslexia as a medical diagnosis (physiological) what are the numbers?? 2% or less?? Ken Campbell

Hi Ken,

After reading your post, I went back to read the sections you were referring to because I missed that. I was also incredulous that someone with Shaywitz’s reputation would be quoting statistics like that that don’t make sense.

I found the section in which she estimates that 3.5% students are receiving special ed services for a reading disability. Ok, that is in line with what I have previously heard.

Then she goes on to see that a Connecticut Study showed that 1 out of 5 students have a reading disability. WHAT?

I realize that typically all disorders like this can be underdiagnosed but that seems like too high of a jump to me, especially in light of the fact that alot of students simply haven’t been taught correctly. Also, even if you account for the fact that there are other reading disabilities besides dyslexia, that still seems like too high of a figure. But I admit I didn’t read the book very carefully so if I am missing something important, please enlighten me.

Finally, can you tell me where she divides the dyslexics into two groups? I couldn’t find that and would like to as your post has really made me curious.

Thanks!

PT

PT, you can find the paragraph where she divides the dyslexics into two groups on Pg 85.

On this site under what’s new, click on “in the news” and the CDC report summarizes prevalence rates of MR to be 1%, ADD to be 3% and LD to be 4%. That sounds more realistic to me.

It sounds like more of the old “It is the child’s problem not the problem of the educational system.” position.

I really can’t stand that view.

I quote from your quote:

Dr. Shaywitz says that the secret to reading is learning how to link the sounds of our spoken language to the letters used to write the words. Parents who devote 20 minutes a day to helping their children sound out words will see their children become adept readers.

Darn! I heard good reviews of this book and thought it might be a useful addition to knowledge, and now find out it’s another academic getting credit for claiming to have discovered fire and invented the wheel. Or teaching my grandma how to suck eggs. Considering that my grandma, with no academic training beyond high school, was doing exactly this a full century ago.

NT

SAR,

Thanks for those statistics and I completely agree with you that they sound more realistic. Interestingly, when I was doing a search for foundations that were concerned with LD issues, one place was quoting a statistic for LD of 1 out of 7, which is slightly over 14%. I still vote for the CDC’s figures.

PT

Linda - Thanks again for pointing me to that page. Actually, I had read that section but just didn’t make the connection to what Ken said. Hmm, can you tell I have LD:))?

Yeah, it seems like she is definitely classifying readers who received poor instruction as having Dyslexia. She states that in that one group of poor readers, the wiring for the posterior reading system was laid down but was never properly activated.

Question for Victoria and other reading professionals - Regarding the students you tutor who are teenagers and older, particularly the ones who have extremely deficient skills - What is the percentage who not only learn to read but do it extremely fluently vs. the students who learn to read accurately but not fluently?

The reason for my question is that Shaywitz seemed to be inferring that folks with Dyslexia who have extremely deficient skills can be taught to read accurately but fluency is hard to achieve unless they are remediated at a very young age. I am not sure I buy that even for folks with true dyslexia since there are more and more studies that show brain placticity is occurring for more years than previously throught. They may not go from a being at the “F” level to an “A” level but it seems like the “C” level is not out of the question.

And it definitely doesn’t make sense that folks who do have the wiring but were poorly taught wouldn’t be able to achieve superb gains in fluency. But of course, those are just my opinions and I would like to hear from the folks who are the experts.

PT

PT,

I am not a reading expert but I have heard from the director of my son’s school (private LD school) that they do have students that they cannot really remediate, the cases of so-called “deep dyslexia”. As I recalled they had said that there maybe 2-3% of their student population and this population is already “all-LD” with majority being dyslexics. This would hence correspond to a fraction of a percent for general population.

They do fluency drills and even with those not all the children will reach a fluency level comparable with non-LD pears, but usually enough to be mainstreamed in public schools with accommodations.

I would really like to hear other opinions.

Ewa

First, I really like Sally Shaywitz’s book and am gleaning ideas by the dozens! I do not feel she is blaming the students and I really appreciate the (in plain English) descriptions of MRI results and reading fluency. I do worry though that the medical community will put a “liberal” label on dyslexia which could prove detrimental to the group I define as dyslexic. Remember that definition drives funding and service delivery models.

My book is either in my truck or at my PT’s office - I can’t look up page numbers.

Ken

what’s the “secret” for helping kids with good or “remarkable” phonological and blending skills, but severe RAN deficit.

I haven’t read her book (only skimmed through it while waiting for my son who was being tested…yet again! :-(
So maybe she does reveal the “secret” for dealing with this. But if not, that’s my question.

Laura, I read your question too late. But I will e-mail her with that. Sorry, Ewa

That’s okay! You may even get a better answer through email! :-)

Did anyone else notice that the references at the back of the book (of which there are hundreds) do not related to anything specific in each chapter? I was looking for the references regarding some of her statements and do not know what reference goes with what sentence.
Is this a publishing error? I’ve never seen this before

There is kind of a dividing line between a popularization and an academic/research publication. A popularization just gives suggestions for further reading. A research publication justifies statements by formally footnoting etc. This discourages me even more about this book; nothing new, alas.

This book is for the people, easy to read, giving hope. Though there are no remarkable break throughs for people up on the literature, this book could/and has given parents more hope. Ken