1

Dr Ross Cooper

NEURODIVERSITY AND DYSLEXIA; CHALLENGING THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DIFFICULTIES

INTRODUCTION

1.1 This paper argues that post-industrial teaching and education systems cause the

experience of dyslexia. The concept of ‘neurodiversity’ is a starting point for unravelling

its social construction. Many of us considered ‘neurodiverse’ are beginning to reframe

the concept and challenge the social construction of ‘specific learning difficulties’ (e.g.

BrainHE website, DANDA website, Pollak, David 2009, Martin, Nicola 2011), and shift

the debate away from a perceived ‘deficit’ towards identity politics. What is now required

is an analysis of the process through which specific difficulties arise and how these are

categorised as individual ‘deficits’. This then allow us to reframe and challenge the

deficit model in favour of a social model of specific learning differences. However, this

is about a great deal more than academic debate, it is really about how to change

negative learning experiences into positive ones.

NEURODIVERSITY AND BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM

2.1 The concept of ‘neurodiversity’ was coined by Judy Singer (1999). Her view, as

someone with ‘Aspergers’, is that her ‘condition’ is not a ‘deficit’ to be ‘corrected’, but a

normal part of human diversity; that those ‘objecting’ to Aspergers were distant

academics seeking a solution to a ‘problem’ of their own devising. This conceptual

framework is echoed by John Stein (2001, p30) when he argued that if dyslexia did not

have evolutionary advantages, it would have died out through natural selection.

2.2 The original concept argued that neurodiversity is a product of the way the brain is

‘wired’. This biological determinism can be challenged without losing the usefulness of

the concept. While dyslexic brains have characteristic differences compared to ‘non-

dyslexic’ brains, we now know that brains ‘rewire’ themselves in response to experience

(e.g. Buonomano and Merzenich, 1998). We therefore do not know if the differences

are a genetic imperative, a consequence of experience, or a combination of both.

However, the critical issue is not whether the brain is responsible for differences, but

that the differences exist. What remains clear is that these differences feel part of who

2

we are, of how we make meaning (Cooper, 2009), rather than something that has

happened to us.

2.3 It is often assumed that most people are ‘neurotypical’ while a minority are

‘neurodiverse’ (DANDA website) and it is sometimes argued that some brains are

sufficiently different from the ‘norm’ that peoples’ behaviour can be recognisably

different as a consequence. In contrast, a social interactive perspective would argue

that we are all neurodiverse. The concept of a majority who are ‘neurotypical’ and a

minority being ‘neurodiverse’ arises not because of the ‘brain’ differences, but because

society is intolerant to some differences. In other words, ‘neurodiversity’ is a social

construct. We are perceived as ‘neurodiverse’ when we come into conflict with social

expectations and demands. The real issue is not neurodiversity, but institutional

discrimination against certain kinds of neurodiversity. The seedbed of the concept of

neurodiversity is the social model of disability (Oliver, 1990) that argues that we are

disabled by society rather than any ‘impairment’ and the solution is to eliminate

unnecessary social barriers, rather than change or remediate the person. The issue

then is what social barriers have been constructed to make life and learning

disproportionately difficult for us and why are they maintained despite the evident

difficulties and psychological trauma (e.g. Edwards 1994) they create?

EDUCATIONAL INTOLERANCE

3.1 The sociological approach argues that social institutions are rarely as they seem on

the surface, and even more rarely as they are represented. To understand them, we

need to focus on what social functions they serve, rather than how they are perceived or

represented (Berger 1963).. Post-industrial education was developed to serve a number

of systemic purposes. These include training individuals to serve the means of

production in a variety of roles from management to workers. This involves literacy so

that bureaucracies can function effectively, and instructions can be disseminated and

followed. Part of preparing people for the ‘world of work’ is to develop a mind-set to

work as instructed, as well as inculcate suitable values such as ‘discipline, individualism

and a ‘fair day’s pay for a fair days work’. For four decades some sociologists (e.g.

Bowles and Gintis 1976, Bernstein 1975, Young and Whitty 1976, Bourdieu and

Passeron 1977) have, in one form or another, argued that a principle social function of

education is to fail a significant sector of the population and persuade them that it is

their own fault. The argument is that this serves to reproduce current social

relationships and predisposes people to accept that we live in a meritocracy and that

individuals ‘deserve’ their fate within the economic and social hierarchies. In this way,

education serves to maintain the current socio-economic power structure.

3

3.2 To achieve this, schools decide what is to be learned, how, in what order, and how

it is assessed. We can also recognise that a great deal of the assessment requires

memorising sequence and detail. The more ‘basic’ the education, the less analytical or

imaginative thought is required. It is only once the ’basics’ have been ‘learned’, that the

learner is expected to think for themselves. This mirrors social roles in a factory where

the worker is required to do as they are instructed and the need to handle emerging

problems increases as the manager rises in status. What is to be learned is also

divided up into different subjects that are generally ‘learned’ in isolation from each other,

which mirrors the division of labour in mass production. Briefly, those that are

successful at the ‘basics’, and can go on to analyse, are groomed for management

levels of work, compared to those who are doomed to labour. In other words, rather

than a pedagogic principle underlying the way schools function, the needs of the means

of production are served

3.3 This system also depends on the ‘authority’ of the educators who are imposing a

way of learning (‘for the learners’ own good’). The system is intolerant of learners who

want to choose what to learn from an early age, who do not recognise the boundaries

between subjects, or between ‘teacher’ and ‘taught’. It also tends to be intolerant to

those who arrive at solutions in unconventional ways, often accusing such learners of

‘cheating’, or not listening.

3.4 Increasingly, for example, the teaching of reading is frequently based on a highly

sequential ‘bottom’ up approach, where synthetic phonics is learned before readers are

‘allowed’ to use contextual clues (Rose, Jim 2009). To facilitate this largely mechanical

‘simple’ view of reading (Rose 2006), texts are selected to be used to learn to practice

‘decoding’ words, rather than enable reading to follow passionate interest. This is

increasingly imposed as a ‘solution’ to those who find such teaching methods quite alien

to the way they think, in the belief that forcing more sequence and structure will enable

them to learn to do what others acquire quite easily. As the Rose Review (Rose 2009,

p57) claimed:

Dr Chris Singleton’s literature review concludes that [….] the key features of specialist

dyslexia teaching are that it is ‘structured’, ‘cumulative’ and ‘sequential’. He adds that

these last three features may be summed up in one term: systematic. This chimes with the

recommendation from the Review of the teaching of early reading that high quality,

systematic phonics should be the prime approach for teaching children to read. p57

This is despite recognising that phonics is not universally successful,

However, as with the early intervention studies, even the most effective intervention programmes do not lead to significant reading gains for all of the participating children and depending on the reading skills measured, from 15 to 60% of older pupils with dyslexia

may fail to respond […] p69

4

3.5 Put simply, the structure of education is intolerant to holistic approaches to learning

which rely on passionate interest, making interesting connections across subject

boundaries (thinking ‘outside the box’) learning in bursts (when the pattern of

information resolves into meaning) and intuitive approaches based on learning by ‘feel’.

In contrast the system requires something measurable to assess, which is usually done

through timed pencil and paper tests (or in the case of reading, by measures of single

word decoding rather than understanding what is read or fluency and speed of reading)

which provide the appearance of fairness and meritocracy, but disadvantage people

who struggle with rote learning and providing expected answers.

3.6 While we now know that learning is more effective and productive when learners

feel safe, are able to follow passionate interests, and make useful connections (e.g.

Damasio 1994), education systems tend to remain trapped by their social functions to

impose authority, limit learning to predetermined and prescribed ‘curricula’ and testing

learning by testing memory or skill behaviour rather than understanding.

THE NATURE OF NEURODIVERSITY DIFFERENCES

4.1 Dyslexia is one of a number of ‘conditions’ that come under the umbrella term

‘neurodiversity. Others include dyspraxia, AD(H)D, Dyscalculia and Aspergers. Each of

these ‘specific learning difficulties’ have come to have reasonably well defined

characteristics, although academics still argue over the precise boundaries. For

example, few would disagree that dyslexia is characterised by difficulties with the

perception of the sequence of rapidly changing sounds (or phonemes) in speech and

associated difficulties with phonics, sequencing, and organisation. Some would argue

that difficulties with the perception of sequences of visual text are also characteristic,

while others argue that this should be attributed to ‘dyspraxia’. The attempt to define

the behavioural characteristic of each of these ‘conditions’ gives the appearance that

they are real conditions that are separate from each other, possibly with unique

‘causes’, although there remains no agreement, despite 120 years of research, about

what causes the underlying sequential difficulties (Rice and Brookes, 2004).

4.2 What is now known is that there is a significant overlap between these ‘conditions’.

If you get a ‘diagnosis’ of one, you have a greater than 50% chance of being

‘diagnosed’ with another (Gilger and Kaplan, 2001). I have suggested that the

connection between these ‘conditions’ has not been recognised because each of them

are considered the domain of different academic or medical professionals. However,

when considered altogether, it becomes apparent that all ‘specific learning difficulties’

have two things in common. These are working memory difficulties and a strong

preference to make meaning holistically

5

1. Working memory difficulties

4.3 Working memory difficulties are a measurable difficulty with retaining intrinsically

meaningless information (such as a sequence of random numbers) while working on

something else (that may be related- such as reproducing the numbers backwards).

This difficulty can explain a wide range of ‘specific learning difficulties’ such as holding

on to arbitrary information including letters and sounds, the sequence of muscle

movement, the sequence of mathematical processes, multiple instructions, and so on.

Schools tend to teach arbitrary information through rote and sets of socially constructed

‘rules’. However, it is difficult to remember what these are and use them in the context

of doing something else (such as writing).

4.4 In fact, some of these conventions are not entirely arbitrary. For example, there is

a good reason why mathematical processes are sequenced in the way that they are;

there is an underlying meaning or purpose. This gets to the heart of the problem for

most of us with ‘specific learning difficulties’. We need to understand the reason,

purpose, or meaning in order to make sense of the learning. Without it we are disabled

by the teaching, but with it we can be highly successful learners. In practice this

becomes something of a lottery depending on the inclination of individual teachers.

4.5 The fact that we can agree that people with ‘specific learning difficulties’ have

difficulties, may seem to imply that these represent a ‘deficit’. However, I argue that the

‘difficulty’ is merely a response to the educational expectation. They are no more a

deficit than being required to use a right hand when you are left-handed. It looks, and

usually feels, like a deficit while the expectation remains unquestioned. Once the

expectation is questioned, we can recognise that it is the expectation that is disabling,

not the intrinsic difference.

2. A strong preference to make meaning holistically

4.6 Making meaning holistically depends on recognising (and often playing with)

patterns in information. It’s about seeing the connections that render information

meaningful. This requires imagination and making intuitive connections (by feel). It

requires very little working memory. (In contrast, making meaning sequentially requires

working memory while you work through a sequence of information [that is usually

structured either chronologically, or by virtue of perceived cause and effect]. It depends

little on imagination).

4.7 In other words, the apparent working memory deficit is simply a by-product of a

strong preference for making meaning holistically.

6

4.8 Most people can make meaning both sequentially and holistically. But not

everyone can. Those who can do both are not necessarily ‘better’ learners, but they

have the capacity to adapt more easily to their educational experience. Education tends

to assume that we make meaning sequentially. When you don’t, education can be

extremely disabling. However the process is uneven and differentiated. It depends on

social context, personal interactions, self-reflections and chance. It was in recognition

of the unevenness of the process, and the role of chance, that the Bagatelle Model1 of

Specific Learning Differences was developed.

THE BAGATELLE MODEL OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DIFFERENCES

5.1 The Bagatelle Model argues that there is no direct cause for ‘specific learning

difficulties’. Rather, if a learner has a strong preference for making meaning

holistically, they are predisposed to struggle with sequential processes, rote memory

and working memory, particularly in a context where the focus of learning is intrinsically

uninteresting to the learner. This is similar to the Specific Procedural Learning Deficit

Hypothesis (Nicholson and Fawcett, 2007), but identifies a social explanation rather

than assumes a ‘deficit’.

Fig 1. The Bagatelle Model of Specific Learning Differences

5.2 Approaching learning holistically involves looking for meaning in patterns of

information. This has the advantages of speed of problem solving, of being able to

make interesting connections, and making links with passionate interest. It is usually

associated with visual thinking and creative approaches to learning. It can have the

1 I introduced the Bagatelle Model at the 8

th Annual Disability lecture at Cambridge University, St

John’s College on 16 March 2010

ETC

AD(H)D

DYSPRAXIA

?

DIFFICULTIES

FACILITIES

SELF

ESTEEM

SELF

REFLECTION

SOCIAL

INTERACTIONS

AND

EXPECTATIONS SEQUENTIAL

HOLISTIC

NEURODIVERSITY

DYSCALCULIA

ASPERGERS

DYSLEXIA

7

disadvantages of not being able to explain how you have reached solutions, and being

censured for crossing subject boundaries. In addition, holistic thinking only recognises

sequence when it is intrinsically meaningful to the problem at hand. It more usually cuts

across sequence to seek out underlying structure in the information. Consequently,

awareness of sequence and chronology tends to be less relevant. In addition, visual

thinking can be so fast that time-dilation effects can be extreme (Cooper, 2009, Wolf &

O’Brien 2001)). This makes for what appears to be ‘ill-disciplined’ behaviour, poor time-

keeping and a lack of ‘orderliness’. These are not attractive traits to teachers who are

trying to impose order and discipline on large groups of learners, even if the unusual

approaches of the learners can sometimes be perceived as interesting to some

teachers.

5.3 Unfortunately, attention to detail, personal organisation, memory for trivia and

learning to read are perceived as ‘markers’ for ‘intelligence’ (Cooper 2006), so having

unexpected difficulties with the tasks required by school can be traumatic. Trauma itself

is known to reduce working memory (Morey, Dolcos, Petty, Cooper, Pannu Hayes,.

LaBar, and McCarthy, 2009) compounding the problem. How traumatic the experience

feels, depends on how the situation is handled by the teachers and your peers. It also

depends greatly on how it is internalised; to what extent it impacts negatively on self-

esteem. This also interacts with educational success. For example, holistic learners

may have good success with art, creativity, lateral thinking and other activities that lend

themselves to holistic thinking and problem solving. Depending on how things are

taught, holistic thinkers can have successes with any subject. These experiences then

inform the self-reflections and can ameliorate the impact of negative experiences. The

individual needs to find a way of making sense of their sometimes contradictory

experiences. Consequently, each individual, depending on their experiences, comes to

different conclusions and accommodations with what it means- who they are as

learners. In many cases this can be extremely damaging psychologically (e.g. Edwards

1994). We can also recognise that some individuals, given positive experiences, can

escape the negative consequences so common for so many of us.

5.4 The precise nature of the evident difficulties and the individual’s behaviour in the

learning context have been subject to categorisation (dyslexia, dyscalculia, AD(H)D

etc.). But the Bagatelle Model argues that these are expressions of the same difference

mediated through different experiences and self-reflections. It is little wonder that

individuals often acquire more than one ‘specific learning difficulty’. However, these are

social constructs, even if the specific difficulties are experienced as real and frequently

traumatising.

SOLUTIONS

8

6.1 The solution usually offered to people with specific learning difficulties fall into three

categories.

1. To remediate a ‘deficit’ through strategies such as systematic and intensive

phonics. This is very similar to the practice of forcing all left-handed children to

write with their right hands, but I would suggest it can be far more damaging

since it invalidates how the individual makes meaning

2. Strengthening a ‘weakness’ through stronger modalities, such as multi-sensory

education to reinforce a ‘poor memory’. The assumption being that a weakness

can approximate the strengths of others with extra care, attention and motivation.

3. Technical aids such as voice recognition and other ‘assistive technology’ (isn’t all

technology assistive?), which is often perceived as providing metaphorical ‘wheel

chairs’ for the ‘learning feeble’.

6.2 In each case, the problem is seen, to one degree or another, as an individual

‘deficit’ that needs ‘remediation’ or a clever technical solution. However, the social

model of dyslexia argues that the solution to ‘specific learning difficulties’ is to stop

creating them. In theory this is very simple. All that is needed is that learners are

allowed and encouraged to learn holistically rather than sequentially. This involves

enabling the development of passionate interest, creative approaches, and problem

solving. It involves encouraging lateral thinking and learning in bursts (which can be

difficult to monitor).

6.3 As simple as this is on paper, it is extremely difficult to achieve in practice, because

it challenges the underlying social function of education to control and fail a significant

sector of the population. It therefore requires a political solution before an educational

one.

6.4 If dyslexic learners are considered to represent around 10% of the population

(Pennington 1991), it seems likely that all those who have a specific learning ‘difficulty’

are closer to 20% of the population. This is an extremely large minority group, with

large political potential, if we but saw ourselves as having common interest. It seems

self-evident to me that our common experience of education could be a radicalising

factor.

6.5 It is not difficult to see that many of the successful original thinkers in a wide range

of spheres are considered to have one or more specific learning ‘difficulty’. It is

therefore evident that despite the disadvantages of being treated as if there is

something wrong with us, holistic approaches to learning can be extremely successful.

Sadly this is usually despite our educational experiences, not because of them.

9

6.6 The critical issue then, is whether we have the political will to change an education

system to support learning, rather than maintain an outdated and extremely expensive

tool of social reproduction. I would argue that we are entitled to be different and to learn

and work differently. We do not have to be victims of a world intolerant to the way we

think.

6.7 Perhaps a starting point for change, in parallel with a call for political solidarity,

would be the insistence that policies that affect us should not be imposed by ‘experts’,

but involve representation from those it will most affect2.

6.8 However, this is also an opportunity to improve the learning experience of all

learners and develop education systems that are fit for purpose in the 21st century.

CONCLUSIONS

7.1 This paper argues that we are all neurodiverse. When the nature of any individual’s

neurodiversity is in conflict with educational and social expectations, rather than

question the expectations, the individual tends to be held responsible. This is how

specific learning ‘difficulties’ are socially constructed.

7.2 All the various categories of ‘specific learning difficulties’ have more in common

than they are different from each other. They are all characterised by difficulties with

sequence and working memory, which lead to a wide range of consequent difficulties

mediated through social interactions. Typically, sequential and working memory

difficulties underpin difficulties with the sequential teaching of literacy, and mathematics.

The precise nature of the learning difficulties experienced depend on chance and

individual social interactions rather than the nature of the difference. The different

categories of difficulty are therefore, in this sense, arbitrary; simply different expressions

of the same difference.

7.3 Education is particularly intolerant to making meaning holistically. This itself is a

by-product of a primary social function of education. People with ‘specific learning

difficulties’ are, in effect, unintentional casualties of the social system. Holistic learners

challenge the authority of education systems and educators by insisting on learning in

ways that are difficult to monitor, by making connections across subject boundaries, by

questioning the social construction of the boundary between teacher and taught.

Holistic learners are disadvantaged by an insistence on sequential and verbal learning

2 It is interesting to note that the panel of experts on the Rose Review in the UK included no-

one with a ‘specific learning difficulty. It is hard to imagine a similar lack of representation on a panel discussing education policy for women or ethnic minorities.

10

and by assessment systems that are more challenging to us than the learning they are

intended to measure.

7.4 Changing this requires the political will, and solidarity among all of us with specific

learning differences. We need to become demanding of the system if we are to

challenge the social construction of specific learning difficulties. This is turn depends on

the development of a sense of identity as holist learners. However, the greatest and

most ambitious prize is not ‘neuro-liberation’, as important as this may be, but education

systems better suited to all learners.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bernstein, Basil (1975) Class, Codes and Control, Vol III Routledge and Kegan Paul

Buonomano, Dean V.; Merzenich, Michael M. (March 1998). Cortical Plasticity: From

Synapses to Maps. Annual Review of Neuroscience 21: 149–186

Berger, Peter (1963) Invitation to Sociology, Doubleday.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Passeron, Jean-Claude. (1977) Reproduction in Education,

Society and Culture, Sage Publications, translated by Richard Nice

Bowles, Samuel, and Gintis. Herbert. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America:

Education Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic Books

Inc. pp. 131–132, 147

Brain HE website: www.brainhe.com/resources/dyslexia_in_adults.html (accessed

30.10.11)

Cooper, Ross (2006), A Social Model of Dyslexia, Language Issues, Vol 18, No 2

Cooper, Ross (2009) Dyslexia, in Pollak, David (Ed.) Neurodiversity in HE; positive

responses to learning differences, Wiley

DANDA website: http://www.danda.org.uk/pages neuro-diversity.php (accessed

30.10.11)

Damasio, Antonio (1994) Descartes’ Error, Putnam and Sons

Edwards, Janice (1994) The scars of dyslexia London: Cassell, 1994

11

Gilger, Jeffrey and Kaplan, Bonnie (2001) Atypical brain development: A conceptual

framework for understanding developmental learning disabilities. Developmental

Neuropsychology, 20(2), 465-481.

Martin, Nicola (2011) Brief Reflections on Disability Theory, Language, Identity,

Equality and Inclusion http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/diversity/2011/05/brief-reflections-on-

disability-theory-language-identity-equality-and-inclusion/ (accessed 30.10.11)

Morey, Rajendra, Dolcos, Florin, Petty, Christopher, Cooper, Debra, Pannu Hayes, Jasmeet, LaBar, Kevin and McCarthy, Gregory (2009) The role of trauma-related distractors on neural systems for working memory and emotion processing in posttraumatic stress disorder, Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2009 May; 43(8): 809–817.

Nicholson, Rod and Fawcett, Angela (2007) Procedural Learning Difficulties; Re-

uniting the developmental disorders? Trends in Neuroscience 30(4), 135-147

Oliver, M (1990) The Politics of Disablement Palgrave Macmillan

Pennington B F (1991) Diagnosing Learning Disorders, New York; Guilford

Pollak, David (2009) Neurodiversity in HE; positive responses to learning differences,

Wiley

Rice, Michael and Brooks, Greg (2004) Developmental dyslexia in adults: a research

review, NRDC

Rose, J. (2006) Independent review of the teaching of early reading. Department for

Education and Skills.

https://czone.eastsussex.gov.uk/sites/gtp/library/core/english/Documents/phonics/Si

mple-view-of-reading.pdf(accessed 30.10.11)

Rose, Jim (June 2009) Review of dyslexia (Identifying and Teaching Children and

Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties. Dept. of Children, Schools and

Families, UK.

Singer, Judy (1999) Why Can’t You Be Normal for Once in Your Life? in Corker, Marian and French. Sally (Eds), Disability Discourse, Buckingham, England: Open University Press, 1999, p. 64

12

Stein, John (2001) The magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia. Dyslexia

7:12-36, http://www.physiol.ox.ac.uk/~jfs/pdf/mileslec.pdf (accessed 30.10.11)

Wolf, Maryanne and O’Brien, Beth (2001) On issues of time, fluency and intervention.

In A.J. Fawcett (ed.) Dyslexia: Theory and Good Practice. London: Whurr

Young and Geoff Whitty (1977, Society State and Schooling. The Falmer Press