“We Know for a Fact”: Dyslexia Interventionists and the Power of Authoritative Discourse

Abstract

Although researchers have studied dyslexia for over a century, there is still much debate about how dyslexia differs from other reading difficulties and how to support students labeled dyslexic. Nevertheless, dyslexia policy and practice are steeped in authoritative discourse that speaks of a definitive definition, unique characteristics, and prescribed intervention programs that are not well supported by research. In Texas, and increasingly in other states, only educators trained in these programs are considered qualified to provide intervention for students identified as dyslexic. In contrast to earlier research, which found that the word dyslexia decreased teachers' confidence and feelings of self-efficacy, the dyslexia interventionists we interviewed expressed a high degree of confidence and certainty about dyslexia and the interventions they used. Bakhtin's notion of authoritative and internally persuasive discourse helped us think about the reasons for these findings and how to initiate a broader and more inclusive conversation about dyslexia. Keywords inservice teachers, interventions, teacher beliefs, discourse/discourse analysis, policy Recently, there has been a vast increase in attention to dyslexia in policy, practice, and the media. Although researchers have studied dyslexia for over a century, there is still much debate about how it differs from other reading difficulties and how to support students identified as dyslexic. Some children struggle to decode print, which is the central issue in what is termed dyslexia. However, researchers have failed to consistently identify characteristics or patterns of reading that distinguish dyslexia

Characteristics of Students Identified With Dyslexia Within the Context of State Legislation

“…Dyslexia legislation is being implemented in all but a few states across the United States, and there has been considerable public discourse about the potential impact of these laws on education policy and practice (Petscher et al, 2019; Worthy et al, 2017; Worthy, Salmeron et al, 2018; Worthy, Svrcek et al, 2018; Youman & Mather, 2013, 2015, 2018). However, there has been scant new data shared to help inform the public debate around these topics.…”

“…The explosion in dyslexia-specific state legislation over the past decade has been accompanied by publications describing aspects of these laws (Petscher et al, 2019; Worthy et al, 2017; Worthy, Salmerón, et al, 2018; Worthy, Svrcek, et al, 2018; Youman & Mather, 2013, 2015, 2018). The need for these laws and their potential impact has been a point of discussion in these publications, but these publications have not reported new data.…”

A Critical Evaluation of Dyslexia Information on the Internet

“…. .” and “we know for a fact” (Worthy, Svrcek, et al, 2018, p. 377) signal that the point being made is established and not open to interpretation, thus limiting possibilities for questioning and multiple perspectives. AD is common in discussions surrounding learning differences, as traditional models of special education are based on a medical model of disability that is “steeped in an expert discourse that privileges the perspectives of professionals over families and learners” (Baglieri et al, 2011, p. 273) and frames learning difficulties as intrinsic disorders and as objective fact (Bishop, 2013; Reid & Valle, 2004).…”

“…Comprehension instruction occurs at the sentence or paragraph level and in decodable texts constructed by program developers. According to educators trained in such programs, the instruction is scripted, and learners progress from start to finish, regardless of age, reading proficiency, or word knowledge (Worthy, Svrcek, et al, 2018).…”

Is My Adolescent/Adult Struggling Reader Dyslexic?

“…It may already be alluded to by special educators as a specific learning disorder with impairment in basic reading, or reading fluency. However, dyslexia is the term preferred by remediation advocates because it specifies a phonological processing disorder ostensibly requiring a proprietary phonics‐based remediation program, which they just happen to be trained in providing (Worthy, Svrcek, Daly‐Lesch, & Tily, ).…”