Talk:List of treatments for dyslexia

About This Page

The primary purpose of this page it to present a neutral list of treatments or approaches to dyslexia as a complement to the dyslexia series and navigation template. The introductory paragraphs are meant as brief summations only -- more detailed discussion should be placed on appropriate topic pages, or specified via links to related articles.

Please try to describe any treatments added in neutral, objective terminology. If you have detailed information or discussion about a particular program or treatment, please place that on a page corresponding to that treatment; if such page does not exist, then it would be appropriate and helpful to create a page for that topic and link to it from here.

Please try to keep additions to the lists on this page in alphabetical order, within each list.

The difference between the two tables is as follows:

• Teaching Methods Geared to Dyslexia:

The primary goal is to teach a specific skill to dyslexic students; it is not expected or claimed that the teaching will change the underlying condition giving rise to the reading disability. In general, such methods will be used in schools, and tied only to academic skill areas.

• Therapeutic Approaches to Dyslexia:

The primary goal is to change, remediate or improve one or more of the underlying neurological, sensory, or cognitive issues that are believed or asserted to have a causal relation to the dyslexia. In general, such therapies will be arranged outside of the educational system, and treatment is not limited to academic skill areas. Armarshall 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

New page

Hi, Arm.

Looks good! It takes a neutral approach and sets just the right tone.

May I ask, why did you place the Lindamood-Bell interventions under Therapeutic approaches? They're academic interventions.

???

Best,

Rosmoran 03:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lindamood-Bell is a close call for me, and I wouldn't object to it being moved, but for me the distinction is whether the program claims to teach vs. claims to treat a disorder. The LMB literature I was familiar with from several years ago was more "treament" focused, referring to programs to address specific "disorders" they defined such as "concept imagery disorder", so I felt they leaned toward the therapeutic model.... but I just visited their web site and they seem to have shifted their language somewhat. I don't see that "disorder" phrase on their web site any more. (You can see this change by comparing using www.archive.org to compare the language on lindamoodbell.com from a few years back to the current phrasing). So it looks like there has been some sort of philosophical shift over the years, at least in the words they use to describe their program. For example, they used to advertise themselves specifically as a "treatment" for dyslexia - see: http://web.archive.org/web/20010124043200/www.lindamoodbell.com/learningcenters/ - whereas that language is completely removed from the current incarnation of the same page at http://www.lindamoodbell.com/learningcenters/

Another distinction I see somewhat is in method of delivery -- while there are some LMB-trained tutors in schools, the program itself (at least in the US) is often given in an intense setting at a private clinic - a few years ago I heard reports of parents being quoted fees around $9000, I don't know what they charge now. So simply the setting + fees typically charged seems to veer toward the therapeutic model vs. the educational model. But if you feel it should be moved to the other chart I don't feel that strongly -- to me it is a close call as to where to "slot" LMB. It isn't the only therapy that seems to straddle both categories -- but I kind of wanted to distinguish between the type of help that families typically can expect to get through the schools from the type they typically would seek out on their own, outside of regular school hours. Armarshall 07:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the dilemma. My knowledge of LMB is based largely on personal experience --- we've paid (plenty!) for the ADD (now LiPs) program, and it seemed to me to be academic in delivery. However, thinking about the content it does seem to cross the therapeutic line (for example, focusing on the sounds of language and identifying where in the mouth the sounds are made). Of course, O-G based programs often include similar instruction, though not to the same level of depth. I want to think some more about this one.

I see LMB provided privately over longer periods of time --- LMB trains and certifies providers, so not every student has to go spend weeks in Santa Barbara! I hear that it is sometimes provided in schools, though I have never seen this. I know very little about their V&V and STARS programs, so I'll do a bit more research.

As to cost, have you looked at fees for any of the O-G based interventions? The least expensive trained provider runs ~4800 per year, assuming twice-weekly tutorials, and usually require at least 2 years of intervention to help a child read on grade level by 3rd grade. If kids are older and farther behind, it can take much longer.

I don't mean to be flip, but I had a dark and not-quite-wild-eyed chuckle at the idea of schools providing any of these academic interventions. Except for Reading Recovery, all of these interventions are provided primarily in private settings. Of course, RR is the program that research has shown to be ineffective for kids with dyslexia (though it evidently does often work for the so-called "garden-variety" poor readers).

In all seriousness, schools seldom provide such interventions. Could we brainstorm about an alternative criteria for drawing the line between academic and therapeutic?

Rosmoran 14:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Orton-Gillingham based programs are available without cost at all through the Masonic Learning Centers - http://www.childrenslearningcenters.org/- although I understand that there are long wait lists for those spots -- they also provide free training to O-G tutors. The problem is that "Orton-Gillingham" is a generic description of a type of methodology, not a single program -- so what is labeled O-G isn't always the same. Many special ed teachers at schools do have some level of O-G training, so that is one that may or many not be made available to students depending on their school resources.

Slingerland is used as a curriculum in many specialized schools for dyslexic students; and sometimes in the US special ed funds are used to place kids with severe dyslexia into such schools, even though they are private schools. I believe that Beth Slingerland specifically developed it as a way of transferring the one-on-one design of O-G to group, classroom use.

Wilson language is very widely used in public schools in the US (I get a LOT questions from parents about it, i.e., "my school uses Wilson, what do you know about it?") You can get a good idea of which programs are being used in public schools at the Florida State University Center for Reading Research site -- http://www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/reportslist.htm - because that agency pretty much was focused on looking at curricula in use within state schools.

I understand the source of your chuckle, because I certainly didn't have any meaningful help offered for my son when he was in school-- but I know that schools do offer some of these programs, but they are more likely to offer something that can be purchased in the form of a packaged curriculum than to hire someone on staff with specialized training.

I certainly am not tied to the classification system I set up. I just felt that they didn't all belong lumped together, and at the same time I didn't want to create more confusion by having too many different lists. My main goal is to see a useful, orderly list - and as long as it stays that way & this doesn't turn into a page to debate the merits of the programs listed, I'll be happy. Armarshall 05:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a *very few* schools that offer minimal programs, or at least claim to. When we moved from CA, we chose where we moved based largely on there being a Slingerland derivative supposedly offered in the district. Well, there were some minimal aspects of direct instruction provided for brief periods in 1st grade, but very brief and not anywhere near enough for mastery. In the resource room, which supposedly "uses Wilson", they do some activities 3 days a week. And this is one of the "best" school districts in the country. (Nationally ranked, I kid you not.)

Yes, there are a reasonable number of private schools that do Slingerland or some derivative of an O-G program, if you can afford the tuition (around $30k in the SF Bay Area, about $20k in areas of the country that have lower costs of living). The vast majority of them go only through 8th grade. But to get a public school to place a child in one, expect to spend tens of thousands in legal fees, years of litigation, and to almost certainly lose.

Not that I'm bitter.

Yes, Scottish Rite does offer free programs to students through 5th grade, Alphabetic Phonics or some variant thereof (my grandfather, dad and brother are Shriners, which is the order a level beyond the Masons). It's actually quite a good program, although the intervention is for only 2 years and can only take kids through about 5th grade reading level. The Lucius Waites center at the Shriner's Hospital in Dallas may have a more comprehensive program. Scottish Rite Learning Centers often do offer teacher/tutor training, but it's certainly not free. (I took it!)

Florida has established the FCRR, which is a great resource for getting an idea of what little research is available about specific programs, and it's headed by Joe Torgeson, a highly esteemed figure in the world of reading research. Notice, though, that the state of Florida has created something called the McKay Scholarship which parents of special ed students can use to send their kids to a private school. Makes you wonder how many of those Florida schools are making use of the information the FCRR is publishing.

Anyway, my point is merely that most parents will not have access to much of anything through the schools available to them.

What would you think about using a heading something along the lines of "Academic Interventions"?

Talk with you soon.

Rosmoran 16:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the title - and I just changed it. I also agree with & understand the other comments -- the practice in reality is very far from the theory and that is one reason why it is so frustrating overall for parents when it comes to finding help for their kids, and also why I think a page like this is so important. I honestly feel that the primary agenda of many public school districts is simply to delay things until the kid ages out of their school and it isn't their problem any more. So it would be useful for parents to have a neutral source where they can come and get a list of various interventions rather than having to depend on whatever the school offered.

I think Joe Torgeson is great- I would consider his work one of the most reliable & trustworthy sources for information related to dyslexia/reading education. Armarshall 01:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Major changes

Following the deletion of therapeutic approaches from the main article, I suggest the following changes:

• Change the name of the article to Dyslexia treatment
• Make it into a general treatment article (not 'treatments') by deleting the academic interventions list.
• Delete the therapeutic treatments section, or merge it with the alternative therapies article.
• Archive the talk page. Piechjo (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Rosmoran (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)