We saw yesterday one of the main ways in which those who do not believe that the teaching of reading to children is a necessary or wise undertaking, manage to justify their actions. Or, what is more to the point in this case, their inaction! The starting point is the claim that one in five children taught to read at school remain illiterate, whatever teaching method is used. This figure of 20% is then used to demonstrate that a certain proportion of children will have difficulties in acquiring literacy and it is therefore not surprising to find a good number of home educated children who also do not learn to read at the age of six or seven. In this approach, the inability to read is treated not as an educational failure but as either a neurological deficit or natural stage in development. This is the biological determinist view of reading!
Now the fact of the matter is that the literacy rate in the UK is not 80% but too all intents and purposes 100%, or at the very least 99.9%. It is incredibly rare to come across anybody who has been to school in this country who is unable to read a popular newspaper like the Daily Mirror or write a shopping list. Perhaps readers would like to ask themselves the last time they met anybody who could only sign his name with a thumbprint, or by making a cross? Teaching reading at school is generally effective and almost every child acquires some degree of proficiency in reading and writing by the age of eleven. Where then does the idea come from that one in five people in this country are functionally illiterate? The answer is that it all depends upon what you mean by illiterate. The old definition of literacy was the ability to read or write a simple note. This level of literacy would enable one to get by in day to day life. One could follow printed instructions, read a simple newspaper, write a shopping list and so on. The vocabulary and syntax of The Sun, for instance, is designed to be accessible to a nine year-old and thus cater for this level of literacy. There are very few people in Britain unable to function at this level. That developed countries like Britain have a near 100% literacy rate is because they have almost universal schooling. Less economically developed countries where schools are not available to much of the population have lower literacy rates. True illiteracy in this country, a complete inability to read or write, is not spread evenly throughout the population. It is very rare and tends to occur in specific communities such as Gypsies and Travellers. These are the same people who often manage to avoid schools.
Every so often though, some body such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development will announce that the literacy rates in developed countries are actually very low. They do this by redefining literacy in terms of those who have a high level of so-called 'document literacy'. This means the ability to fathom out tables and charts, read timetables, understand technical documents and so on. This is the level of literacy which one would need to flourish in business. Most ordinary people manage quite well without high levels of 'document literacy'. This an entirely different thing from true illiteracy.
Even so, what about 'dyslexia'? Surely a certain proportion of children both at school and being educated at home are going to have trouble with learning to read? Well, not really. Ofsted's survey Reading by Six more or less disposed of that myth. It may be found below;
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/News/News-Archive/2010/November/Reading-by-six-how-the-best-schools-do-it-Ofsted
I know one of the schools mentioned in this report; Woodberry Down in Hackney. I work nearby and visit this school frequently. It has a huge number of children whose home language is not English, many children with special needs, including some on the autistic spectrum. There is no dyslexia at all in the school; all the children learn to read by six. This is due to good teaching. Nor is this school alone, as you will see from the report.
As a general rule, children who are taught to read properly, learn to read. Those who are not, often fail to do so. The key is in effective teaching. Among some home educators or in communities such as Gypsies or Travellers, or for those who attend lousy schools; there will be reading difficulties and 'dyslexia'. When proper teaching is given; this usually vanishes and is replaced by literacy. The 'treatment' for dyslexia is almost invariably that used for illiteracy; i.e. intensive and highly structured work in phonics. It is this simple equation, that good structured teaching yields good results in literacy, which apparently eludes many home educating parents.
I would agree that the concept of 'dyslexia' as a developmental condition that makes it difficult for children to learn to read is questionable. However, that doesn't mean that children can't have organic causes - a range of different causes - for their difficulties with reading.
ReplyDeleteAs you point out, there is also a question mark over what is meant by functional illiteracy. Or even 'learning to read by six'.
In the Clackmannanshire study
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383
as far as I can see all the children learned to read by six, but the long-term reading outcomes were very variable. By primary 7, around 15% of the children were two years or more behind their age group in terms of reading comprehension and smaller percentages two years or more behind with spelling and word reading.
In order to find out the effect of early reading strategies on the literacy levels of school leavers, one has to wait until the children are at school leaving age. Interestingly, some home-educating parents report that their late readers catch up very quickly, implying that the age at which one learns to read before 16 might not make any difference to one’s reading ability at 16. What might make a difference, though, and what might emerge over time, is specific difficulties with certain aspects of reading.
' Interestingly, some home-educating parents report that their late readers catch up very quickly, implying that the age at which one learns to read before 16 might not make any difference to one’s reading ability at 16.'
ReplyDeleteWithout knowing what definition of literacy such parents are using and being sure that they are all using the same definition; such anedotal data are meaningless.
'By primary 7, around 15% of the children were two years or more behind their age group in terms of reading comprehension and smaller percentages two years or more behind with spelling and word reading.'
Defining these children as being 'two years behind' is often made by comparison with some arbitrary standard such how they match up against as Level 4. This is also how the idea that as many as a quarter of children have reading difficulties is spread around. An adult with a reading age of nine, two years below level 4, can operate effectively in society. He may not be able to work in a library and use the Dewey Decimal System, but he will be able to read letters, fill out forms and read the Mirror or the Sun. Such a person is not illiterate. It is certainly desirable to have a higher level of literacy than this, but not always necessary.
In your blog, you implied that 'good teaching'and a 'simple formula' resulted in all children learning to read by six. I was pointing out that all the children in the Clackmannanshire study (who by anybody's measure had good teaching) appeared to learn to read by six, but that outcome didn't tell you what level of literacy they would have by 16 - or even 11.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can see, one can't draw *any* comparisons between home-educated children who don't learn to read until they are 12 or 13 and school-educated children who learn to read by six, because we don't have reliable data on the outcomes for either group at the age of 16.
As you yourself have said, Simon, there is more to reading than the simple de-coding of words. That might be the basic skill but the working out of meaning, an awareness of form, an appreciation of tone and style - all that is what we really mean by 'reading'. Now I don't know but it seems to me that you might reach a basic de-coding level at six but never get much beyond that. Equally, you might acquire the basic and the higher levels of the process later on in life and end up a far more competent reader than the person who read early. I think this is what suzyg is suggesting too.
ReplyDeleteThere are also important questions about enjoyment. You might indeed turn out efficient little readers at six, through the application of a structured programme, but are they motivated by that process to read independently and expand their skill?
'You might indeed turn out efficient little readers at six, through the application of a structured programme, but are they motivated by that process to read independently and expand their skill? '
ReplyDeleteSome home educated children never reach that point either, because their parents are still waiting for them to become self-motivated, not understanding their own role in the encouragement of certain skills.
Literacy isn't all about reading either. Writing always seems to be forgotten in such discussions.
'Literacy isn't all about reading either. Writing always seems to be forgotten in such discussions.'
ReplyDeleteGood point. Two parents have commented here in the past about their children's inability to write. One, whose son was fourteen, could only write his own name in block capitals. She had been waiting over ten years for him to show an interest in learning to write. Chilling story!
'There are also important questions about enjoyment. You might indeed turn out efficient little readers at six, through the application of a structured programme, but are they motivated by that process to read independently and expand their skill?'
ReplyDeleteSome will, others won't. I know adults who never read for enjoyment and others who would not dream of going anywhere without a book. I doubt that being able to read will discourage people from picking up a book for pleasure! Once children have learned the basics, some will explore further while others will not. The least we can do is give them the ability to fill out forms, read a newspaper and make notes; after that it's up to them.
"I doubt that being able to read will discourage people from picking up a book for pleasure!"
ReplyDeletePut like that it sounds silly but if the process of learning to read is made boring enough then I can quite imagine that a young child might come to associate reading with tedious slog. That might then damage their later reading development, which depends on reading a wide range of texts in some depth.
As a dyslexic adult (I find the inverted commas very degrading) who only discovered my dyslexia at 27 I find your simplistic and small minded approach along with your comments most insulting.
ReplyDeleteI learned to read early (pre-school) but was persecuted by teachers for my inability to write essays throughout my secondary years. Not until 27 did I discover that actually it wasn't my fault and I am not lazy.
Dyslexia is not just about learning to read, it means a whole different approach to learning and can sometimes cause visual issues too. Ever tried reading whilst sitting in a shaking vehicle? Or whilst the light levels fluctuate or the colours change and the letters dance in the page? These are common visual disturbances experienced by dyslexics that are barriers to reading. Guess what? Phonics doesn't solve that....
Not for a moment do I believe there are no dyslexics at the school in Hackney. They are just untested. If the literacy rate is good then maybe they are individualising their approach. Good for them. Dyslexics are not stupid - they just have differently wired brains, as do people on the autistic spectrum. They need a different approach, respect and understanding.
"Without knowing what definition of literacy such parents are using and being sure that they are all using the same definition; such anedotal data are meaningless."
ReplyDeleteSufficient to gain GCSE in English, as I've already said in previous comments. Is this a 'good enough' definition of literacy for someone who thinks that we have 99.9% literacy whilst only two-thirds of school leavers manage to achieve this?
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"We saw yesterday one of the main ways in which those who do not believe that the teaching of reading to children is a necessary or wise undertaking, manage to justify their actions. Or, what is more to the point in this case, their inaction!"
For a start, I don't feel the need to justify anything to you, I just explained our situation for those who are interested. Our pre-reading situation did not equal inaction either. Much time was spent on reading to children, looking at books together, looking for recognized letters in signs when younger, playing word games such as eye-spy, discussing the meaning of words, synonyms, similes, etc whilst reading, etc.. This type of reading environment does not require the ability to read on the part of the child but it does prepare them for it and it is part of literacy.
"The starting point is the claim that one in five children taught to read at school remain illiterate, whatever teaching method is used."
No, not our starting point, it was just something that occurred to me as a possibility after my children learnt to read. Our starting point was non-coercive education and the theory that children who choose to learn something of their own free will do it better and more efficiently than if they have to learn it. Intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation.
"As a general rule, children who are taught to read properly, learn to read. Those who are not, often fail to do so. The key is in effective teaching."
I'd agree with that, but what does 'effective teaching' look like? My early reader learnt to read just by being in a 'reading environment' as described above. My late readers both had this same environment and also asked for structured lessons when they wanted to learn to read.
suzyg wrote,
ReplyDelete"Interestingly, some home-educating parents report that their late readers catch up very quickly, implying that the age at which one learns to read before 16 might not make any difference to one’s reading ability at 16. What might make a difference, though, and what might emerge over time, is specific difficulties with certain aspects of reading."
Do you think there is some kind of 'critical period' for learning to read then? Do you think these possible difficulties would be different for a child who has learnt much literacy (through being read to lots, discussions of meanings and roots of words, similes, synonyms, etc) but has just not learnt to decode text and a child who has not learnt either?
My oldest late reader is now in their 20's and does not appear to have difficulties with reading, gaining plenty of qualifications and producing degree level written work at college according to a tutor. What sort of difficulty are you thinking of?
'Is this a 'good enough' definition of literacy for someone who thinks that we have 99.9% literacy whilst only two-thirds of school leavers manage to achieve this?'
ReplyDeleteWithout knowing your own definition of literacy, it is impossible to comment. Are you really suggesting that a third of the adults in this country are illiterate? This means, I suppose, that one in three of the people with whom you come into contact, are unable to read and write.
'"The starting point is the claim that one in five children taught to read at school remain illiterate, whatever teaching method is used."
ReplyDeleteNo, not our starting point,'
This is the problem with so many Anonymous individuals commenting. Somebody yesterday mentioned the figure of one in five and it was to this that I was responding.
"Without knowing your own definition of literacy, it is impossible to comment."
ReplyDeleteI meant, is gaining GCSE English is a good enough test of literacy. Obviously you can be literate and not have English GCSE. You queried the definition of literacy used by parents of late readers. My late reader gained GCSE English, does that mean he is literate in your eyes? Do we agree that, in at least one case, a late reader has gained literacy?
Simon, do yo really reject the whole notion of dyslexia? Or do you think the term is over-used?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous above, who is dyslexic, said,
"If the literacy rate is good then maybe they are individualising their approach. Good for them. Dyslexics are not stupid - they just have differently wired brains, as do people on the autistic spectrum. They need a different approach, respect and understanding."
That sounds perfectly reasonable. If individual approaches can help people with dyslexia overcome their difficulties then it would seem that home education should be an excellent environment to do that.
I suppose that one danger of taking an extremely relaxed approach to the acquisition of literacy at home might be that, as a parent, you could miss the indicators that would suggest that your child was dyslexic.
Anonymous who is dyslexic, does this seem possible or likely?
'Do you think there is some kind of 'critical period' for learning to read then?'
ReplyDeleteThere is some evidence for this. At the very least, the brain which has not learned to decode written langauge probably works differently from the brain of a reader. You might find this interesting;
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/121/6/1053.full.pdf+html
This could have important repercussions in later life, especially after the brain has stopped the rapid development in childhood.
"This is the problem with so many Anonymous individuals commenting. Somebody yesterday mentioned the figure of one in five and it was to this that I was responding."
ReplyDeleteYes, that was me and that's why I responded to your 'starting point' comment. My point is that this issue was not a reason or justification for our chosen educational theory as you appear to suggest in your article. Our starting point was non-coercive education and this would have remained the same even if all school children learnt to read to adult level.
I also do not think that the teaching of children to read is unwise or unnecessary. Autonomous education does not rule out teaching. I have taught all of my children to learn to read, either through immersion or with structured lessons, whichever has suited them best and at a time and with methods of their choosing.
'Simon, do yo really reject the whole notion of dyslexia? Or do you think the term is over-used?'
ReplyDeleteSome people certainly have problems in the wiring of their brain which makes it hard for them to learn to speak, read or acquire other skills. In the case of a child who has not been taught to read and then has trouble reading; I find this an unnecessary hypothesis. I am a great believer in Occam's Razor, that the simplest hypothesis which covers all the known facts is the one which we should adopt.
I cannot play the clarinet. It is possible that I suffer from some neurological deficit which prevents me from decoding the symbols used in western music and that I am tone deaf as well. More likely by far is the hypothesis that I cannot play the clarinet because I have never been taught to play it.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"There is some evidence for this. At the very least, the brain which has not learned to decode written langauge probably works differently from the brain of a reader. You might find this interesting;"
It's interesting but does not describe even pre-reading teens, at least in this house. They define illiteracy as having no knowledge or reading or writing and this was obviously not the case for my pre-reading children who understood the basic idea that written words represent spoken words and that individual letters and combinations of letters represent sounds. They just had not learnt which letters represented which sounds.
Could the difference in brain scans be explained by the, 'use it or lose it' theory? After 65 years on not using those parts of the brain it's hardly surprising they no longer work. I don't think it's fair to compare the brains of 65 year olds who have never read and do not understand the connections between the written word and speech, and a early teen whos brain is still growing and developing rapidly and does understand the connection.
Simon wrote,
"This could have important repercussions in later life, especially after the brain has stopped the rapid development in childhood."
If you have read the link I provided you will have seen that:
"Although most people believe that cognitive development plateaus in early adolescence, current research shows that young adolescents go through tremendous brain growth and development. Far from being "over the hill," they are just beginning to encounter the mountain."
My late readers tried several times to learn to read as they grew up but were only successful during adolescence.
"I cannot play the clarinet. It is possible that I suffer from some neurological deficit which prevents me from decoding the symbols used in western music and that I am tone deaf as well. More likely by far is the hypothesis that I cannot play the clarinet because I have never been taught to play it."
ReplyDeleteWell that sounds fair enough but I don't think anyone would seek a diagnosis of dyslexia had they never attempted to learn to read or if no-one had ever attempted to teach them. You can't play the clarinet because you've never attempted to learn - either by teaching yourself or by being taught.
Surely neither you would not claim that people take no action in teaching their child at all and then go straight for a diagnosis of dyslexia?
"I cannot play the clarinet. It is possible that I suffer from some neurological deficit which prevents me from decoding the symbols used in western music and that I am tone deaf as well. More likely by far is the hypothesis that I cannot play the clarinet because I have never been taught to play it."
ReplyDeleteSo you think people are claiming children are dyslexic without ever attempting to teach the child to read?
Anonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete'Do you think there is some kind of 'critical period' for learning to read then?'
Reading is a complex skill and it's not a 'natural' skill at that. There is unlikely to be a critical period for reading per se - but there might be for the component skills that go into reading. What I suspect happens is that some children are taught to decode too early - when their auditory and visual discrimination skills aren't sufficiently developed, and that people who don't learn to read until they are adults never quite get the same fluency as people who learned when they are younger. But that's just speculative.
'Do you think these possible difficulties would be different for a child who has learnt much literacy (through being read to lots, discussions of meanings and roots of words, similes, synonyms, etc) but has just not learnt to decode text and a child who has not learnt either?'
No I think the main difficulties are because of visual and/or auditory discrimination and with visual and auditory working memory as a consequence. Learning a lot about reading would certainly support decoding when it was acquired.
'My oldest late reader is now in their 20's and does not appear to have difficulties with reading, gaining plenty of qualifications and producing degree level written work at college according to a tutor. What sort of difficulty are you thinking of? '
The research evidence suggests that most reading difficulties originate in auditory processing issues. Glue ear is a likely culprit in many cases, leading to difficulties with some aspects of language acquisition and hence with reading. Many children literally 'grow out' of such problems, meaning that what was difficult at 6, isn't at 12 or 14. In other cases, early auditory processing problems could result in the brain developing abnormal processing pathways that persist in making reading difficult. This is why synthetic phonics is so effective - because it can re-train the brain.
'So you think people are claiming children are dyslexic without ever attempting to teach the child to read?'
ReplyDeleteI think that when, as certainly happens, some home educating parents avoid any sort of formal instruction in the teaching of reading, then one has to be very cautious a few years down the line in blaming any reading difficulties on neurological dysfunction.
'Reading is a complex skill and it's not a 'natural' skill at that. There is unlikely to be a critical period for reading per se'
ReplyDeleteWell of course the same could be said of learning a second language with a native accent. There is a critical period for this, beyond which it is almost impossible to learn the langauge with a perfect accent. I see no reason why a similar process should not operate with reading.
"I think that when, as certainly happens, some home educating parents avoid any sort of formal instruction in the teaching of reading"
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence do you have for this?
Interesting brain imaging study:
ReplyDelete"...most functional imaging studies of illiteracy only contrasted schooled versus unschooled adults. Because these studies did not include “ex-illiterate” adults who did not attend school but learned to read during adulthood, they confounded the effects of schooling and literacy. The only important exception focused solely on how brain anatomy is changed by literacy. In this study, we separated the functional effects of schooling and literacy by comparing illiterates, ex-illiterates, and adults schooled in childhood. "
"Conclusion. Literacy, whether acquired in childhood or through adult classes, enhances brain responses in at least three distinct ways. First, it boosts the organization of visual cortices, particularly by inducing an enhanced response to the known script at the VWFA site in left occipito-temporal cortex and by augmenting early visual responses in occipital cortex, in a partially retinotopic manner. Second, literacy allows practically the entire left-hemispheric spoken language network to be activated by written sentences. Thus reading, a late cultural invention, approaches the efficiency of the human species’ most evolved communication channel, namely speech. Third, literacy refines spoken language processing by enhancing a phonological region, the planum temporale, and by making an orthographic code available in a top-down manner. These largely positive changes should not hide that literacy, like other forms of expertise, also leads to cortical competition effects. At the VWFA site, a significantly reduced activation was found for checkerboards and faces. The intriguing possibility that our face perception abilities suffer in proportion to our reading skills will be explored in future research."
How Learning to Read Changes the Cortical Networks for Vision and Language
Stanislas Dehaene, Felipe Pegado, Lucia W. Braga, Paulo Ventura, Gilberto Nunes Filho, Antoinette Jobert, Ghislaine Dehaene-Lambertz, Régine Kolinsky, José Morais and Laurent Cohen.
Science 3 December 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6009 pp. 1359-1364
Simon said;
ReplyDelete'Some people certainly have problems in the wiring of their brain which makes it hard for them to learn to speak, read or acquire other skills. In the case of a child who has not been taught to read and then has trouble reading; I find this an unnecessary hypothesis. I am a great believer in Occam's Razor, that the simplest hypothesis which covers all the known facts is the one which we should adopt.'
An alternative (and probably more likely) explanation is that minor sensory problems mean that the 'wiring' doesn't develop normally. The scans of dyslexic brains tend to show the lack of differentiation you'd expect to see in young children's brains.
No problem with Occam's razor, but I think the idea is that, having adopted the simplest hypothesis that explains the data, you then test it rather than assume it's correct.
Reiterating an earlier point, since we don't appear to have data on the literacy levels of the six year old readers, nor the HE late readers at the age of 16, we can't draw any conclusions about the efficacy of the methods involved.
.
Simon said;
ReplyDelete'Well of course the same could be said of learning a second language with a native accent. There is a critical period for this, beyond which it is almost impossible to learn the langauge with a perfect accent. I see no reason why a similar process should not operate with reading.'
The two are not directly comparable. You are talking about a single aspect of language - being able to mimic the pronunciation of the words with a high degree of accuracy. I agree that there does appear to be a critical period for this.
However, that doesn't mean that older children, teenagers and adults cannot become highly proficient speakers of a second language that they did not learn during infancy.
Is there evidence showing that adults who are taught to read for the first time as adults have significant difficulties doing so?
"Is there evidence showing that adults who are taught to read for the first time as adults have significant difficulties doing so?"
ReplyDeleteThe impression gained from the MRI study mentioned above is that the same brain changes happen if person learns to read as a child or as an adult. The researchers suggest that differences in reading fluency can be explained by the reduced education period, something that would be much less of an issue for a child who learns to read at 11-13.
Thank you Anonymous. That's what you'd expect since most skills improve with number of exposures/rehearsals.
ReplyDelete"It is incredibly rare to come across anybody who has been to school in this country who is unable to read a popular newspaper like the Daily Mirror or write a shopping list. Perhaps readers would like to ask themselves the last time they met anybody who could only sign his name with a thumbprint, or by making a cross?"
ReplyDeleteA builder we know had to ask us to write a letter for him and fill out his passport application form. I think he could sign his name. Would you call him literate?
"It is incredibly rare to come across anybody who has been to school in this country who is unable to read a popular newspaper like the Daily Mirror or write a shopping list."
ReplyDeleteWould you know if you did?
When Joe Monks was made redundant at the age of 44 he panicked that people would finally discover he couldn’t read or write. It was a secret he had managed to hide, even from his wife. He tells Abbie Wightwick how he turned his life around and gained a degree
TO admit as an adult that you can’t read or write takes guts.
For more than 40 years, Joe Monks, from Cardiff, was unable to read or write more than a few words.
Read More www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/02/12/graduate-who-learned-to-read-and-write-at-43-91466-28158454/#ixzz1F1MFUPnE
'A builder we know had to ask us to write a letter for him and fill out his passport application form. I think he could sign his name. Would you call him literate?'
ReplyDeleteNo, I woudn't. Now try and calculate how many people you have come across in the last few years who can read and write. Express this builder as a percentage of that number. Do you think that you have met or know a hundred people who can read and write? That would give a literacy rate of around 99%. The real figure is higher than that, of course. The very fact that you have mentioned a single person makes this point. If you told me that a third of the people you had met over the last year had been unable to read and write, now that would be interesting.
"Now try and calculate how many people you have come across in the last few years who can read and write."
ReplyDeleteBut how do you know you haven't met an illiterate person, or even many illiterate persons? It's well known that people develop good strategies for hiding illiteracy as demonstrated in the newspaper article (and I've read many similar examples over the years). The person in the newspaper article met someone he knew in a literacy class, but before they met there, neither realised that the other had problems. The person in the article managed to hide his problems from his wife! Are you suggesting that you can know all the people you meet better than their wives or husbands, that you can spot an illiterate on sight? We only discovered our builder friends illiteracy after knowing him for 2 years.
"Do you think that you have met or know a hundred people who can read and write?"
ReplyDeleteIt's usually impossible to tell. I don't usually set people literacy tests when I meet them! They don't have it stamped on their forehead.
Allie said
ReplyDelete"I suppose that one danger of taking an extremely relaxed approach to the acquisition of literacy at home might be that, as a parent, you could miss the indicators that would suggest that your child was dyslexic.
Anonymous who is dyslexic, does this seem possible or likely?"
Funny you should ask that. I have a dyslexic son who learned to read after the age of 8. We taught him some phonics early on but he had no interest in reading, and we did not push him, until his motivation kicked in related to playing games on the gameboy. Now a teenager he reads in two languages as well as reading English classics.
BUT he was surrounded by reasons to read - books, puzzles, computer games etc etc.
And dyslexia is something you are born with. And it runs in families. There is no evidence that anything environmental (except possibly ultrasound scanning of the foetus) affects dyslexia either way.
Anonymous who is Dyslexic