Introduction
Dyslexia has been qualified as a learning disability, which means that this condition can significantly decrease the effectiveness of learning without having an impact on the development of a person in every other aspect (Tunmer and Greaney 232). Still, in the modern world, where reading is almost a must, dyslexic people, who are perfectly capable in every other aspect, have problems in receiving education and qualifications, which, in the end, affects their choice of profession and has adverse effects on their position in the society and self-esteem (Vanninen and Määttä 36).
Upon recognizing dyslexia as a specific condition that results in specific needs, governments began to encourage the development programs aimed at helping the people who suffer from reading disabilities (Miles 73-74; Etscheidt 182). Almost immediately a view appeared, according to which, by diagnosing the children with dyslexia, teachers “label” them, effectively decreasing their chances of socialization (Miles 70-74). Despite the fact that this view does have some ground, the “labeling” is a crucial step towards the treatment and management of the problem. In this paper, the flaws of the opposite opinion are going to be highlighted, and the necessity of labeling is going to be grounded.
Dyslexia: General Information
Dyslexia can be defined as “persistent literacy learning difficulties (especially difficulties in word recognition, spelling, and phonological recoding) in otherwise typically developing children” (Tunmer and Greaney 232). It can become a significant difficulty in the elementary school that is bound to affect the educational process and, in the end, may also have a somewhat adverse impact, on the whole course of a person’s life (Vanninen and Määttä 37). To illustrate this fact, it would suffice to point out that the level of education is especially important for the future employment. According to Jones, the level of unemployment among the disabled (all kinds of disability) is 50% compared to the 20% among the people without disabilities, and it is the education level that employers and researchers blame for the discrepancy (32-36).
In fact, dyslexia is responsive both to measurements and treatment (Vanninen and Määttä 38). The connection of the problem to central nervous system failure allows scientists, researchers, and practitioners to create programs that allow dyslexics to “train the brain,” and people of different age are receptive to this treatment (38-40). This discovery, though, is a relatively recent occurrence just as the acceptance of dyslexia as a factor that needs to be taken into account on the governmental level.
For example, in Britain, the first attempt to legally define the specific needs of dyslexics took place in 1970 in the form of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act (Miles 73-74). In the US, the first education act that mentioned dyslexia appeared in 1986 and its name was changed in 1990 to the “Individuals With Disabilities Education Act” (IDEA) that it has been sporting until the recent day (Etscheidt 182). With time the Acts were, obviously, revised and changed, as more information about dyslexia (as well as other disabilities) emerged in the process of scientific research.
As a result, nowadays, under the US IDEA schools now provide “early intervention, supplemental, and individualized instruction for children in underperforming schools” while the “teachers are expected to address a wide range of individual differences in cognitive, academic, and behavioral development” (Etscheidt 184). Therefore, the difficulties of dyslexia have been recognized and addressed on the governmental level, at least in the countries that pride themselves in being developed.
The Problem of “Labeling”
As shown above, nowadays, the attempts of acknowledging the needs or, possibly, the rights of the dyslexic people are being made in the education process. Etscheidt calls such an approach “rights-based” and demonstrates that its primary flaw consists in labeling the children with limited abilities as different, assigning an “otherness” status to them (188). According to the author, apart from being psychologically difficult for a number of children, this label decreases their motivation for change (Etscheidt 188).
In other words, this becomes an educational variant of a “sticky floor” for the children with learning disabilities. The solution to the problem as suggested by the author consists of the revision of the system of education (Etscheidt 187-188). The author does not provide any consistent plan for this process, which is why it will not be assumed here that she offers the ridiculous idea of lowering the standards and expectations for all the children. Instead, this paper will contain an attempt of responding to the claim by, in turn, highlighting its flaws.
In the book devoted to the history of dyslexia research, Miles argues that there is nothing “defeatist” and, therefore, discouraging in calling a dyslexic child dyslexic, mostly, because it is not the end of the treatment but, instead its beginning (71). This is a signal for those around the child to provide the necessary support or, in other words, the first step towards changing the situation; therefore, if anything, the label should be regarded as encouraging. Apart from that, Miles recalls a mother pointing out that her child prefers being called dyslexic to being called dumb (71).
This is another dimension of the problem. The mother, in fact, expressed the opinion that the differences of the children are obvious to anyone around them and themselves. Therefore, attempting to hide it is, in effect, pointless. On the other hand, demonstrating dyslexic children that it is not their fault and that it can be changed with time could hardly be called counterproductive and might, in fact, motivate the child to outperform him- or herself.
Obviously, there is another “level” of labeling problems hinted by Etscheidt (188). One of the reasons for decreasing motivation in dyslexic children could consist not in the lowering self-esteem, but in the realization of the fact that different expectations apply to them. As a result, a child may use the diagnosis to justify laziness and low effectiveness of the problem management. It should be pointed out, however, that such an effect can be mitigated without the prohibiting of labeling but with the help of an attentive specialist or parent, who is capable of noticing the problem and explaining to the child why it is a bad idea to neglect studies.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the psychological difficulties of being “different” need to be taken into account while working with DC, but there is no use in refusing to name the disability. In fact, by depriving the children of the information concerning their specifics of development, we refuse them the chance of understanding themselves and, in future, making informed decisions about the actions that are in any way related or affected by the problem. As a result, such an action could be considered a crime.
Dyslexia Can Be Managed
Apart from the flaws of the counterclaim, there is another important point that proves the necessity of labeling. It consists in the fact that dyslexia can indeed be managed, and the label is the first step to this management. According to Miles, the supposition that “damaged brains” cannot be repaired has been a significant counterargument to accepting dyslexia as an important education factor (71-72). In other words, helping children with learning disabilities was not regarded as a worthwhile occupation. This idea has long been in the way of admitting the specific needs of dyslexic people, but the fact that brain can be “repaired” or, rather, trained, has rendered this argument ineffective (Miles 72).
This stance also betrays the pragmatic approach towards education, one that no politician will admit having but that is obvious from the dependence of educational institutions funding on their results, even nowadays. Obviously, all the programs connected to the children with disabilities need to be (and generally are) held accountable for the results; any funding gives an opportunity for its misplacement, which can be avoided only with the help of sufficient control. Still, the programs for disabled require a special, customized approach (Clawson and Luze 203-204).
To illustrate, it can be noted that dyslexia is responsive both to measurements and treatment, but this response may be inferior to the expectations (Vanninen and Määttä 40). According to Vanninen and Määttä, even in case the necessary support is provided during the young age, it is not uncommon for dyslexia to transfer to the adult age (37-38). Dyslexic people need to proceed to practice their reading skills: otherwise the latter will soon decrease. The fact that dyslexic people tend to be practical about their future choices, acquiring a profession that does not require reading, has allowed scientists to confirm the necessity of constant exercises for the dyslexics of any age (Vanninen and Määttä 37-38).
This problem shows the importance of explaining the dyslexics the specifics of their condition; it also shows that it is the treatment and management of dyslexia that is being spoken about, not the cure. Therefore, the chance of the management being somewhat ineffective and short-lived (useless, in pragmatic wording), is rather high.
Thankfully, nowadays even the chance of improvement is considered sufficient, even though funding difficulties are not rare (Clawson and Luze 203-204). In these conditions, detecting, diagnosing and labeling children is, therefore, the primary (if not the only) way of attracting these hard-to-reach funds and providing the dyslexics with the help they need. The system, definitely, can be imperfect; however, it is difficult to imagine the level of reorganization required to change the system of funding and consequent control of its allocation. It is much easier, it seems, to accept labeling as the necessary evil and work to mitigate its results on the individual level.
Conclusion
Dyslexia is a condition that affects a child’s learning abilities; apart from that, naturally, the self-esteem of a person labeled as “different” tends to suffer, which is particularly noticeable among children. This fact has inspired the opinion, according to which labeling children as dyslexic is counterproductive in the terms of their socialization. The choice of words (“labeling” instead of “diagnosing”) is, obviously, aimed at provoking an emotional response from the audience; however, all the rational arguments point to the necessity of this labeling.
Indeed, labeling is the first step towards the management of the problem. At the same time, the position of the opponents of labeling sports a number of flaws that allow one to conclude: all the problems that arise as a result of labeling can easily be mitigated with the help of taking them into account. In other words, to render labeling harmless, one simply needs to pay a little more attention to the children who need it so much.
Works Cited
Clawson, Carolyn, and Gayle Luze. “Individual Experiences of Children with and without Disabilities in Early Childhood Settings.”Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 28.3 (2008): 132-47. ProQuest. Web.
Etscheidt, Susan. “‘Truly Disabled?’ An Analysis Of LD Eligibility Issues Under The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies 24.3 (2012): 181-192. SAGE publications. Web.
Jones, Melanie. “Disability, Education and Training.” Economic and Labour Market Review 4.4 (2010): 32-37. ProQuest. Web.
Miles, Tim. Fifty Years in Dyslexia Research. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. Print.
Tunmer, William, and Keith Greaney. “Defining Dyslexia.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 43.3 (2009): 229-243. SAGE publications. Web.
Vanninen, Petri, and Kaarina Määttä. “Secondary Education Students With Reading Disability – Findings From Two Remedial Training Experiments.” Studies for the Learning Society 3.1-2 (2015): 38-46. Walter de Gruyter Database. Web.