The Right to Read Reviewed by
Dr. S. DuBose Ravenel
M.D., F.A.A.P., High Point, North Carolina:

As a practicing pediatrician with a heavy emphasis on behavioral issues, including ADD/ADHD, serious difficulties with learning are often encountered. The frequency with which children diagnosed with ADD or ADHD have also been diagnosed with a "learning disability" after psycho-educational testing through the schools has steadily increased in recent years. During the past year I set out by reading research articles to achieve a better understanding of the basics of learning disability — its definition, etiology, and most important, effective management.

The result of this process of intensive reading and discussions with professional colleagues led only to more confusion rather than to edification and clarification. No one seemed to be able to pinpoint objective evidence of a brain-based affliction, yet the assumption of a biological or neurological basis pervades the literature. Intuitively it was puzzling that some neurologically based affliction has become so common, yet definitive evidence for a central nervous system basis yet remain elusive. Furthermore, the very definition of learning disability as performance lagging behind expected achievement potential seemed arbitrary.

An internet search for information on learning disability led to “The Right to Read” by Dr. Jan Strydom and Susan du Plessis. In striking contrast to articles on LD published in mainstream pediatric journals, Strydom and du Plessis' work is logical, intuitively understandable and common-sensical, presenting a coherent, unified theme. As they point out, despite an explosion of early intervention and remedial teaching in schools, learning disabilities remain pervasive and persistent. The results of their novel approach appear to be remarkable. When one considers that conventional remedial teaching has neither reduced the incidence of learning problems in schools, nor been proven to be highly efficacious for the individual, their eminently logical conceptualization of the nature of the problem and their dramatic results warrant serious consideration among professionals who are faced with helping families cope with learning problems.

Among the fascinating observations made by Strydom and du Plessis are the following:

• According to a study, by 1970, despite 1 billion dollars having been spent on compensatory education for "LD" in reading, 19% had improved, 15% fell further behind, and in over two thirds no change was observed.

• Illiteracy rates in 1930 varied from 1.5% of native-born whites to 16.3% of blacks in the United States. In 1993 a national adult literacy survey found 25% unable to read. They further point out that while the overwhelming majority of children in the 1990's attended either public or private schools, in the 1930's far fewer children had the "benefit" of formal school instruction.

• During its first 100 years, graduation from Harvard required a knowledge of Hebrew. During recent years, the point is approaching when one might graduate without a knowledge of English.

After revealing and illustrating powerfully the abysmal result of prevailing assumptions about LD and widely held concepts about recommended approaches centered about remedial reading programs and tutoring, the authors outline a disarmingly understandable and sound framework for conceptualizing and approaching this problem. Their basic ideas consist of several propositions upon which their program for addressing reading disability is based:

1. Learning is a "stratified process" — meaning built upon sequential acquisition of skills and knowledge.

2. Learning cannot occur without repetition — as in "drilling", in former times central to learning, cast aside as "boring" in recent times.

3. Application.

Once one grasps the core ideas espoused by the authors, their approach to effective teaching of reading skills, even to those with a "learning disability", is easily comprehended. They stress that most children who fail to learn reading adequately do so because they have never been taught basic foundational skills upon which the ability to read must be built. They go on to show how remedial reading programs and methods commonly used by tutors fail to address these skills and therefore are ineffective. The authors show how conventional LD/dyslexia approaches fail due to the prevalence of fundamental flaws of assumptions, circular reasoning, and illogical thinking.

In discussing the Strydom approach recently with parents of a 3rd grade boy who was experiencing increasingly severe problems in school with reading comprehension, I shared this observation: Prevailing theoretical constructs and methods embraced in teaching basic subjects such as reading currently are of such complexity that I suspect that teachers must have great difficulty even understanding what they are trying to teach! The parents responded by stating that, indeed, their son's teacher had recently told them she would never even attempt to teach at any higher than a third grade level because “they have made teaching so complicated.”

This work is a strong breeze of fresh air in a sea of confusion, ambiguity, and complexity. I heartily endorse Strydom and du Plessis' approach and encourage fellow professionals to offer their approach to their patients. Try it, you'll like it!