This chapter is concerned with prevention, assessment, and intervention for reading disability (dyslexia). The initial section is concerned with the reading wars that have fought over the most appropriate way to teach reading. The development of this debate over the past century is outlined and the current focus upon the highly publicized “science of reading” movement is examined and evaluated. The chapter then considers the prevention of reading disability and the nature and role of screening. In so doing, the chapter highlights the complexities of screening for dyslexia when this latter term is used both as a synonym for reading disability and alternatively as a discrete condition that applies only to some struggling readers. The bulk of the chapter is concerned with an examination of “what works” for struggling readers of different ages and levels of difficulty. The often disappointing effects of what are considered to be the most promising interventions are considered. Findings from other, less scientifically grounded, alternative treatments are reported and critiqued. Finally, the lack of any meaningful relationship between a dyslexia diagnosis and differential intervention is examined. It is noted that programs for struggling readers cannot be meaningfully determined on this basis.

The opening section of this chapter charts the history of the dyslexia construct. The distinction between scientific understandings of dyslexia (a difficulty in accurate and fluent word reading) and reading comprehension is emphasized. Different conceptions of dyslexia exist, however, and these are grouped within four categories, each of which is examined and critiqued in turn. Dyslexia 1 concerns an understanding whereby dyslexia refers to those with the most severe and persistent forms of reading. Dyslexia 2 describes the widely held view that only some struggling readers are dyslexic, and such individuals need to be identified by expert assessors using various cognitive tests. In these cases, the individual’s reading problem is often considered to be unexpected. The role of intelligence, and intelligence/reading discrepancy, as a marker of dyslexia is examined in significant detail. A Dyslexia 3 conception places emphasis on the struggling reader’s difficulty to make significant progress even when provided with high-quality intervention. Dyslexia 4 concerns the understanding that reading difficulties should be considered as only one part of a much broader dyslexic condition that may provide a number of compensatory gifts. The need to eschew unitary explanations in favor of multifactorial understandings of reading disability involving a combination of biology and environment is emphasized.

This chapter considers the neurobiological bases of reading disability (dyslexia). These primarily concern the working of the brain and the nature and role of genetics (heritability). The first part of the chapter considers the development of the “reading brain,” describing key brain areas and their functions. The historical development of brain studies in reading disability from the early role of postmortems to present-day scanning techniques is outlined. The discussion of each of contemporary measurement approaches is split into two parts. Opening with work that focuses upon brain structure, discussion then considers brain functioning, particularly functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The second part of the chapter focuses upon the contribution of genetics to the dyslexia debate. In so doing, it considers both quantitative and more recent molecular approaches. The significant heritability of reading skill is discussed and the rudimentary knowledge base concerning the genetics of reading is acknowledged. The chapter concludes by noting that, despite significant scientific advances in both fields, neither current brain scanning techniques nor genetic analyses can be used to diagnose reading disability/dyslexia or inform practitioners about appropriate forms of intervention.

This chapter is largely concerned with arguments for and against the use of the dyslexia construct as a diagnosed label. The most commonly voiced arguments for the value of the label put forward in response to the publication of The Dyslexia Debate in 2014 are listed, analyzed, and critiqued. Key arguments for the label are clustered under the following headings: learner empowerment and exculpation, gaining access to finite resources, the perceived failure of teachers, schools and school systems, meeting the needs of adult learners in further and higher education, neurodiversity, disability, and the dyslexic identity, and other arguments offered for retention of the label. Having shown the flaws in each of these arguments, the chapter concludes by reasserting the key message provided throughout the book that there is no need or justification for the continuation of dyslexia diagnoses or labels. Rather, efforts should focus upon ensuring that the needs of all struggling readers are identified and addressed.

This chapter considers the cognitive literature in relation to dyslexia, repeating the message that unitary explanations involving single processes are overly simplistic and multifactorial models are needed. Each of the various processes (deficits) that have been cited in the literature as having a potential causal role in reading disability is examined. Key processes considered in detail are phonological/phonemic awareness, rapid naming, short-term and working memory, executive functioning, auditory processing, visual processing, visual attention, and visual stress (scotopic sensitivity, psycho-motor processing). The educational and clinical implications that result from this body of work are considered.

This final chapter provides a series of conclusions and recommendations for the way forward. In the light of the experience of the past decade, this chapter recommends the continued use of the term dyslexia to describe a severe and persistent difficulty with accurate and fluent reading. However, it is recommended that the use of the term dyslexia as a diagnosed label or category for specific individuals should be discontinued. The importance of removing the existing arbitrary distinction between dyslexic and nondyslexic poor readers and the rejection of the expanded use of the term to incorporate a wide range of cognitive strengths and weaknesses is explained. The implications of these recommendations for the development of teacher expertise and educational practice are outlined.

The spread of literacy throughout the world made it necessary to develop a systematic (stage-based) and effective (quick and inexpensive) way of teaching reading that could be delivered to many (different) people simultaneously with the use of the ever-changing textures of reading. In this chapter, it will be shown that all of these considerations, when contemplated holistically, define the parameters of the genetic system that is the foundation of literacy in general and (a)typical reading and writing in particular. Yet it is a distal one, with the proximal foundation being the brain. It will be concluded that the genetic bases of (a)typical reading and writing is nothing more than the genetic bases of a brain that, pressured by the demands and opportunities imposed by modern society, has turned itself into a reading and writing (i.e., literate) brain.

Considering the continuing interest of the scientific community and the public in the genetic bases of intelligence, in this chapter we highlight three facets of the numerous studies in this broad area: (1) the trajectory of studies that have sought to elucidate the etiology of intelligence; (2) the relevance of the selected phenotype; and (3) the consequence of the chosen genetic mechanism. The use of three main approaches to the study of the genetic bases of intelligence (the linkage studies focused on heritability of the phenotypic trait, hypothesis-driven candidate region and gene studies, and genome-wide association studies) has resulted in a list of about 150 genes apparently associated with intelligence, but the discrepancy between the heritability estimates obtained in quantitative versus molecular genetic studies persists. One explanation of this discrepancy relates to the heterogeneity of the phenotypes often used in quantitative versus molecular genetic studies. The other states that, in addition to the genetic mechanism sampled by genome-wide association studies (i.e., the common variance-based mechanism), there may be other genetic mechanisms that influence individual differences in intelligence, in particular, epigenetic mechanisms. Their consideration may become a course-changing innovation for understanding the genetic bases of intelligence and providing a window onto the diversity of human abilities.

This observation is attributed to William E. Vaughan, an American columnist and author who liked to be clever in his commentaries on life. Whether generally true or not, the wry humor of his words gives us a way to graciously face the sometimes overwhelming speed at which knowledge seems to accumulate and change. This has certainly been the case in the rapidly evolving fields of genetics and genomics. Genetics, refers to the general field of science that studies the composition of genes and how they work. Genomics is the study of organism-specific sets of genetic material, or chromosomes. A person’s genotype includes all the genes a person will have for his or her life; it is set at the moment of fertilization. It is also often referred to as a person’s genetic make-up. A person’s phenotype is the set of observable characteristics which result from the interaction of their genotype with the environment. Chromosomes are discrete bundles of DNA; they come in pairs, with one chromosome of each pair from one parent. Every individual has his or her own set of chromosomes, or genome, but genomes may be defined at any number of levels of classification: species-specific genomes, such as the human genome (e.g., the genome of Homo Sapiens) or the mammalian genome (e.g., the genome that reflects the common features of different types of mammals – humans, mice, elephants, and so on).