Disagree if you like, but let’s get the facts right.
One thing that I have enjoyed about Twitter and blogging is the constructive educational debates that occur from time to time. I am grateful for the feedback and comments on my recent series of posts challenging the view of reading disabilities as lifelong impairments. However, I am reluctantly writing this short post to correct misrepresentations of my position by @JulesDauby here.
Readers may or may not be interested but given that these comments directly impact on my professional standing I feel that I have to point out the following errors:
1 I have never said that children of low intelligence can’t read. This is a completely false representation. I have made it quite clear in the examples in the post, my website and other posts that all children can learn to read. I am passionate about this fact. Accepting that a few children of “significantly low intelligence may not be able to learn to read” is NOT the same as “children of low intelligence cannot learn to read.” The following is an excerpt from my first ever post in January 2014:
2 The series of three posts did not ‘start’ in response to a blog by @JulesDaulby. They were planned long before her post that is mentioned (in passing) in “The natural home for reading interventions . . .” I was working on the assumption that I could highlight a professional difference of opinion without creating personal offence.
3 I have not made any reference to anyone’s ability to teach – and I will celebrate with anyone for every victory that is achieved. This is not a competition. I am not challenging teachers – I am challenging a practice. I have not attacked anyone’s motivations or morals – I am challenging an idea that I believe has had pernicious effects. I will continue to do so; I believe it is right to do so.
The exchange has been useful in one respect: it has demonstrated with crystal clarity that these were blog posts which needed to be written:
You may also be interested in: