Supporting Literacy: Why Labels Aren’t the Only Answer (But They Help)

In their recent article, Special Educational Needs and Disability tribunals: Dyslexia, scientific validity and equity, Julian Elliott, Joanna Stanbridge, and Kirsten Branigan (2024) examine critical challenges in how dyslexia diagnoses shape resource allocation through SEND tribunals. They question whether children with formal dyslexia diagnoses receive disproportionate support compared to other struggling readers with similar needs. The article critiques the current system, arguing that the lack of clear scientific differences between dyslexic and non-dyslexic poor readers leads to inequitable resource distribution. It raises broader concerns about evidence-based practices and fair resource allocation in literacy interventions.

The foundation of dyslexia as a diagnosis lies in its cognitive underpinnings. Experts have long viewed it as a distinct reading disability, often characterised by a range of cognitive deficits, such as difficulties in phonological processing, verbal memory, and processing speed. The article argues that the distinction between dyslexia and other literacy difficulties is not always as clear as assessments may suggest. For many specialists, including dyslexia assessors, cognitive tests are not the sole determinants of literacy difficulties. Specialists also consider factors such as background knowledge, awareness of reading theory, and an understanding of a child’s broader abilities. This nuanced approach enables specialists to unpick the different reasons for reading difficulties and provides targeted interventions. 

While the article questions the reliance on dyslexia diagnoses as the primary gateway to resources, it acknowledges the importance of understanding a child’s individual needs. A formal diagnosis can provide clarity about the nature of a child’s difficulties, offering a framework for tailored support. However, the article argues that effective interventions should not be exclusive to children with a diagnosis, as many struggling readers without a formal label would benefit from similar evidence-based strategies. While this is true, assessments go beyond simply assigning a label; they uncover underlying cognitive difficulties that inform which interventions are likely to be most effective. By identifying these specific barriers, assessments reduce the risk of a trial-and-error approach, which can delay progress and potentially frustrate both learners and educators. Therefore, rather than removing the opportunity for diagnosis, a more inclusive system should focus on making these assessments and the resulting evidence-based strategies accessible to all struggling readers.

I agree with the view that it is important to acknowledge that literacy difficulties can arise from a variety of causes, including trauma, socio-emotional issues, or general learning challenges. In some cases, trauma can manifest in ways that resemble dyslexia in both cognitive deficits and their impact on literacy. The challenge, therefore, lies in understanding that a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for children with literacy difficulties. Just as a standardised intervention cannot treat dyslexia, we should not deny other struggling readers the same level of support. As dyslexia specialists with master’s-level qualifications in understanding literacy challenges, we do not diagnose dyslexia solely on the presence of literacy difficulties. Dyslexia involves specific differences in brain processing that affect literacy skills and are unrelated to underlying intellectual ability. Specialist training enables the identification of these differences and their distinction from other causes of literacy challenges. We can also support children without dyslexia by thoroughly understanding the nature of their individual difficulties.

The article critiques the use of dyslexia diagnoses as the sole determinant for accessing resources and interventions, arguing that many of these supports could benefit a broader population of struggling readers. Although English schools widely implement phonics teaching, some children still fail to meet the expected reading levels. The authors highlight that phonics alone is insufficient for children with complex literacy needs. As a specialist teacher who has worked with children who have “not responded to phonics teaching,” I have found that the issue is rarely with phonics itself, but rather with the need for a more hands-on, multi-sensory approach that underpins effective specialist teaching. The argument is not against the necessity of specialist interventions for children with dyslexia but emphasises that these supports should be available to all struggling readers based on their individual needs, rather than being contingent on a diagnosis.

A key point made is that every child’s literacy difficulties are unique and therefore require a tailored approach. The article advocates for a more flexible use of various programmes and techniques to meet the individual needs of struggling readers. This aligns with the view that no single intervention is sufficient for all children, and that a combination of strategies is often the most effective. Many dyslexia specialists would likely agree with this perspective, as they often refer to themselves as literacy specialists, capable of supporting a wide range of reading difficulties beyond dyslexia alone. 

The article highlights the stark socioeconomic divide in accessing dyslexia assessments and support. Wealthier families can afford private assessments and secure additional resources for their children, while children from less affluent backgrounds are left with fewer options. This disparity perpetuates a cycle of inequity, where those with financial means are more likely to access the support needed to address literacy difficulties, leaving others to struggle without adequate interventions. This is troubling, as literacy challenges impact all socioeconomic groups and should not be determined by financial privilege.

Protective factors, such as being read to regularly, having access to books, being exposed to a rich vocabulary, and engaging in frequent conversations during early childhood, can play a significant role in supporting literacy development. These factors help build early language and phonological awareness skills, which are foundational for reading. Socioeconomic differences can impact access to these experiences, potentially influencing how well children are equipped to navigate literacy challenges, including those associated with dyslexia. Educating teachers and parents on how to recognise and support children with literacy difficulties, regardless of their formal diagnosis, would go a long way towards closing this gap. Diagnostic assessments, while essential for understanding the individual, should not be the sole determinant of who receives support. 

The article challenges the idea that removing specialist dyslexia support would create a more fair system, arguing instead that it would cause a less effective approach to addressing literacy difficulties. While many children struggle with reading, their needs are diverse, and lumping them into a broad category of “poor readers” does not address the specific interventions they require. Just as the article critiques the overemphasis on dyslexia diagnoses, it also warns against a blanket approach to literacy interventions in under-funded schools. One key difference with dyslexia, as that well-founded intervention is likely to not support significant improvement, which is where a specialist diagnosis to identify if dyslexia is the cause, is the appropriate action. This can determine the need for specialist and specific intervention, based on their individual needs, or give recommendations to schools about the best support for that child.

The solution, as suggested in the article, lies in better educating both teachers and parents on how to recognise and support literacy difficulties. This could help ensure that children receive appropriate support within the mainstream system, without needing to resort to private assessments or interventions. While the article does not dismiss the value of dyslexia assessments, it highlights the need for a more equitable system that does not rely so heavily on formal diagnoses to unlock resources. 

Teachers play a crucial role in supporting struggling readers, but many lack the specialised training needed to address the full range of literacy difficulties. Teacher training and ongoing professional development (CPD) are essential in bridging this gap. A broader understanding of literacy challenges, including dyslexia, should be integrated into teacher education to ensure all learners receive appropriate support, regardless of a formal diagnosis.

However, the response also needs to consider the role of assessments in understanding individual needs. It is not enough to rely on behaviour or assumptions about a child’s abilities. Teachers need to be trained to understand the underlying cognitive difficulties that may impact a child’s reading, such as working memory or processing speed. Without this understanding, children may continue to be mislabelled as “lazy” or “unintelligent,” when, in fact, they are struggling with specific deficits that require targeted interventions and specialist support. Children and adults alike benefit from receiving a dyslexia diagnosis. It helps them understand their challenges and why they may struggle more than their peers. To limit access to diagnoses is unfair because literacy difficulties have diverse underlying causes; therefore, we must recognise and address each individual’s needs appropriately.

Ultimately, the article calls for a more balanced approach to literacy interventions. It suggests that the current system is inequitable and that children from wealthier families often have an unfair advantage in accessing support, which I believe is true. However, it also acknowledges that removing specialists or downplaying the importance of dyslexia assessments would not solve this issue. Instead, the focus should be on creating a system where all children, regardless of their background or diagnosis, can receive the support they need. However, it is important to ensure that children needing a dyslexia diagnosis receive one. We should focus on equitable access to assessments and interventions to ensure all children’s needs are understood and supported. This ensures that resources are allocated based on need, not just the presence of a formal diagnosis, and that every child has the opportunity to thrive.

That one size fits all when it comes to literacy interventions is flawed. Children with literacy difficulties are not a homogenous group, and their needs vary greatly. While some may benefit from more phonics-based instruction, others may require more specialised support, particularly if their difficulties are compounded by cognitive deficits or other learning challenges. The article makes a strong case for ongoing professional development for teachers and the need for a more flexible approach to literacy interventions that can cater to the diverse needs of struggling readers, which I strongly support. As a teacher for over 20 years, my understanding of dyslexia and specific learning difficulties was laughably inadequate until I undertook specialist training and qualifications.

In conclusion, the article critiques the current system for prioritising dyslexia diagnoses over the broader needs of struggling readers. It calls for a more equitable approach to resource allocation, where all children with literacy difficulties can access the support they need. While the system is undoubtedly flawed, the solution does not lie in removing specialist support or dismissing the value of dyslexia assessments. Instead, the focus should be on better teacher training, more flexible interventions, and a commitment to supporting all children, regardless of their socioeconomic background and perhaps an increase in the availability of dyslexia diagnosis.