Introduction

The much publicized Pamela Phelps (P.P.) case in the United Kingdom seems to provide a perfect illustration of the key difficulties arising from debates on the existence and utility of the concept of dyslexia and the relevance of such a diagnosis for intervention. The case centered on the assertion that if a diagnosis of dyslexia had been forthcoming at an earlier stage of Phelps's school career, her difficulties would more likely have been overcome. However, there was no suggestion that her literacy difficulties had not been recognized. An educational (school) psychologist had assessed her at primary school and on transfer to secondary school at age eleven; further assessment indicated that she had a reading accuracy age equivalent of 7 years and 3 months. She left school with a reading age equivalent of 8 years.

Although there have been cases of children with severe reading disabilities failing to receive specialist assistance, this was evidently not the case here; Phelps had received remedial help in English and mathematics. The grounds for the claim did not center on the presence or absence of psychological assessment and in-school support, but rather the failure to diagnose Phelps's dyslexia. Such a diagnosis, it was claimed, would have pointed to the most appropriate form of intervention – a highly structured, multisensory approach to the teaching of reading. The key issue arising from this case in relation to the dyslexia debate is whether there are forms of intervention particularly designed for dyslexic children that are not also appropriate for all children who experience word reading difficulties.