Sir James Rose's "working definition" of dyslexia was so woolly and lacking in scientific substance that it provided no basis for the "training" courses that have been set up to try to help teachers deal with the issue. Nevertheless, the course at Edge Hill University has taken the issue to an extreme length, using its course to promote miscue analysis, multicue theories of reading that have no basis in research whatsoever, and even Gardner's "multiple intelligences" theory that does not, as far as I know, tackle the issue of reading and writing at all.
A student who complained about the course, Karina McLachlain, has been treated in a spectacularly ignorant fashion, culminating in an exercise that would have discredited a Victorian schoolmarm. At the course lecture last week, members were encouraged to write down questions, which the lecturer would answer. She duly answered all of the questions except Ms McLachlain's, and then announced to the class that she was not going to answer the questions becuase Ms McLachlain had complained about the course, and the questions related to issues raised in the complaint.
This deliberate humiliation of a student in good standing is a shameful abuse of power by the lecturer in question, and a disgrace to the university. For all my criticisms of Sir James Rose, I know that he shares my disquiet at this course, which has been referred to the British Dyslexia Association for review. Assurances given to Ms McLachlain that balance would be restored, eg by posting a range of articles on the course's website, have not been kept.