Dyslexia today

However, since the problems at school could not be discussed away and still cannot be discussed away today, the decrees were amended, which now assess the student not in terms of his intelligence but in terms of his academic performance.The decrees no longer speak of dyslexia in the actual sense, but of a reading and spelling weakness (LRS), which can now affect all children, regardless of their origin, their intelligence or any attempts at explanation from the child’s environment, by this reading and spelling weakness. The “classic dyslexics” with a partial dyslexia in the area of similarity are affected in the area of mathematics. While there are children who have problems in the mathematical area alone in the form of a partial performance weakness or partial performance disorder (dyscalculia), there are also children who generally have weaker academic performance.

This is called a dyscalculia. 1895 Hinshelwood 1916 Ranschburg 1951 Lindner 50s to 80s

Congenital word blindness; inherited (genetic) or congenital
Term: Dyslexia; mental retardation (“auxiliary student”)
Dyslexia = partial performance disorder in normal to above average intelligence; exclusion of generally weaker pupils
Dyslexia boom and anti-dyslexia movement leading to the innovation of the decrees. Requested are decrees that are available to all students with problems in

History

The change of the term from dyslexia to reading and spelling difficulties (LRS) took place gradually and is partly due to the fact that, on the one hand, the many different attempts at definition led to confusion. Especially in the 1970s and 1980s, dyslexia was all too often used as a reason for academic failure without any rational justification. At this point, a brief historical outline will serve to clarify the terms.

The ophthalmologist Hinshelwood first observed cases of so-called “congenital word blindness” in 1895. The children he examined were not able to read words or single letters. Although no signs of brain or organ damage were found at that time, the doctor’s notes indicated that the children came from families with a low level of giftedness.

It was therefore assumed that “congenital word blindness” was due to a congenital or inherited brain defect. Ranschburg was the first pedagogue to coin the term “dyslexia” from his work in 1916. He equated dyslexia with dyslexia and pointed to a higher degree of backwardness in the intellectual development of a child.

This developmental delay becomes apparent at the age of 6 to 8 years, sometimes later due to the inability of the child to acquire sufficient reading skills. As a result of Ranschburg’s definition, children with reading difficulties were referred to auxiliary schools until after the Second World War. In general, it should be noted that the period before, during and after the Second World War largely eliminated research on dyslexia.

While in the USA, for example, a genetic disposition was considered during these years, this was almost completely ruled out due to the prevailing body of thought at that time. In 1951 Maria Lindner took up the discussion about dyslexia again and tried to refute Ranschburg’s definition. In contrast to her predecessors, she investigated the intelligence of those children who had suffered from dyslexia.

In the process, different research directions also had different approaches to explanation. On the one hand, attempts were made to find causes in the pre-, peri- and postnatal areas, i.e., to find possible problems before, during and after birth. On the other hand, left-handed children in particular were considered “at risk” because they deviated from right-handed dominance.

Other research groups, on the other hand, considered spelling performance to be largely dependent on the milieu, as they found in their series of experiments that children with spelling problems often belonged to the lower class. In this phase of the dyslexia movement, the level of intelligence always played a decisive role. They defined a limit for “normal intelligence”, which was in the range of 85 – 115.

Lindner’s definition also found its way into almost all LRS decrees in the school sector, which meant that Ranschburg’s definition was almost completely deleted. However, the innovations resulted in a true “dyslexia boom”, which in turn created an “anti-dyslexia movement”. Representatives of this movement accused those responsible of trying to cover up inadequacies in the school system by means of a disease-like learning disorder.Dyslexia was described as a construct that only tried to distract from poor grades in school.

One of the main reasons for this claim was that THE cause as such could not be found. As a result, other children became dyslexics again and again – depending on the type of examination. On the basis of Lindner, many attempts were made to find clues as to the cause of dyslexia.

In the process, different fields of research also had different approaches to explaining the cause. On the one hand, attempts were made to find causes in the pre-, peri- and postnatal areas, i.e., to find possible problems before, during and after birth. On the other hand, left-handed people in particular were considered “at risk” because they deviated from right-handed dominance.

Other research groups, on the other hand, considered spelling performance to be largely dependent on the milieu, since they found in their series of experiments that children with spelling problems often belonged to the lower class. In this phase of the dyslexia movement, the level of intelligence always played a decisive role. They defined a limit for “normal intelligence”, which was in the range of 85 – 115.

Dyslexia was described as a construct that only tried to distract from poor grades at school. One of the main reasons for this claim was that THE cause as such could not be found. As a result, other children became dyslexics again and again – depending on the type of examination.

All articles in this series: