| This study addresses the validity of distinguishing whether children who are discrepant in their reading relative to their IQ ("Dyslexics") are different from children who are discrepant in their reading relative to their age ("Poor Readers"). Under the present Ontario education system, governed by The Education Act (Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990), dyslexics represent a specific group with a reading disability and are treated differently from the normal distribution of poor readers. As such, they have a statutory right to remedial programs. Non-dyslexic poor readers do not have the same right.;To evaluate whether discrepancy-based measures are appropriate for distinguishing children with reading disabilities, the present study assessed the reading and reading-related cognitive skills of a cohort of grade 3 children in three different schools in the Greater Toronto Area.;From this cohort of 203 children, two groups---the normal reader group and the poor reader group---were identified by their performance on the WRAT-R Reading subtest (Jastak & Wilkinson, 1984). The poor reader group were those children whose scores were <25th percentile; the normal reader group were those children whose scores were ≥25th percentile. The third group, the dyslexic group, was "System-Identified" by an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) process. In order to be System-identified as dyslexic, a Fun Scale IQ score in the broad average range of 85 or above on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (Wechsler, 1974) was required along with a standardized reading test score of at least two years below the expected grade level determined by age on the Standard Reading Inventory (Newcomer, 1986).;The findings support the hypothesis that System-identified dyslexics do not constitute a distinct group different from the group commonly identified in the study as poor readers. The data suggest that both groups are reading disabled and share many similar deficits on reading, language and memory tasks. The data also suggest that English as a second language (ESL) learners are more likely to be classified as poor readers. This study suggests that, regardless of language proficiency, both groups should receive the same opportunity for remediation. |
