Barriers to learning and participation in school for students with dyslexia: voices of families

Dolors Forteza * Laura Fuster Francisca Moreno-Tallón (Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain)

SUMMARY. Achieving quality education refers to education that must be inclusive and equitable, emphasizing the value of differences to improve teaching and learning experiences. However, many still suffer exclusion processes at school; those diagnosed with dyslexia form a group harmed by unwelcoming school practices and cultures. This study aims to analyze the barriers that hinder their learning and the consequences they produce. From a biographical-narrative methodological approach, the voices of families, through interviews, reveal that multiple obstacles, beyond problematizing their children’s progress, harm their self-concept and self-esteem. The results show the main barriers to be those related to the lack of efficient school-family communication, classroom methodologies that, by their nature, magnify reading and writing difficulties, impacting learning, and the emotional impact caused by the absence of responses to the needs of students with dyslexia. Making these barriers visible is a commitment to the right to quality education for and with everyone in compulsory education.

Keywords: Inclusive education; Barriers; Dyslexia; Family; Equality of rights.

ABSTRACT. Achieving quality education refers us to education that must be inclusive and equitable, emphasizing the value of differences in order to improve teaching and learning experiences. But, there are still many who suffer processes of exclusion in school; those who have dyslexia make up a group damaged by poorly welcoming practices and center cultures. The present study is oriented to analyze the barriers that hinder their learning and the sequels that produce. From a biographical- narrative methodological approach, the voices of families, through the interview, reveal that there are multiple obstacles that, beyond problematizing the progress of their sons and daughters, harm their self-concept and self-esteem. The results show as main barriers those related to the lack of efficient school-family communication, classroom methodologies that by their nature magnify the difficulties in reading and writing impacting on learning, and the emotional impact produced by the absence of responses to the needs of students with dyslexia. Making these barriers visible is a commitment to the right to quality education for and with all in compulsory education.

Keywords: Inclusive education; Barriers; Dyslexia; Family; Equal rights.

Introduction

Moving towards inclusion is not an easy task; on the contrary, given its complexity, it is imperative to get moving. This means shaking off inertia, prejudices, and attitudes; reflecting on the curriculum, methodologies, assessment, and materials; and analyzing the school’s project, the why and the for what, among many other factors that permeate the ‘exclusion-inclusion’ duality. It is unavoidable to scrutinize how school contexts limit learning opportunities by denying the optimal development of the unique characteristics of human diversity. In the 21st century, it is inexcusable to delve into ‘how’ the right to quality education is exercised unequally; a powerful barrier that affects the most vulnerable groups. The alternative to exclusion and discrimination is, without a doubt, an education that includes, that values diversity as an asset, and reduces the categorization to which the education system is so accustomed.

The concept of ‘barriers to learning and participation’ by Booth and Ainscow (2015, p. 9), the essence of their educational approaches for several decades, remains a central axis for understanding the disadvantages and inequalities that are formed within the education system, often by limiting participation and learning possibilities, thus achieving the depersonalization of teaching to which Echeita and Domínguez (2011) allude: ‘everyone doing the same thing, at the same time, with the same resources, or appealing to identical forms of motivation’ (p. 29).

Slee (2012) warns that inclusive education “is not a technical problem to be solved through a set of compensatory measures, be they curricular adaptations, the physical adaptation of the school, or the way the […] test is administered. These approaches do not question the architecture of exclusion” (p. 161). Or, in other words: “the role of the school in maintaining or reducing inequalities depends on what the school does, it is not an exclusively structural situation” (Murillo and Hernández-Castilla, 2014, p. 17). By sharing these positions, we consider it relevant to continue delving into the analysis of barriers that, in various ways, make learning impossible or difficult for children and young people, creating inequalities. On this basis, the study has been proposed, as a responsibility, according to López (2012), in the search for “a new educational project that allows us to learn to live together as an opportunity for freedom and equity” (p. 131).

Recognizing these barriers is a way of making visible the fragility of the group of students with a diagnosis of dyslexia in an education system that does not welcome and does not value diversity, affecting their performance and emotional state. An education system that “can never be of quality if it maintains exclusionary mechanisms within itself” (Azorín and Sandoval, 2019, p. 24).

1. Literature review

The objective of this study is to delve into the analysis of the barriers that students with dyslexia face in the school environment from the perspective of families; barriers that hinder their children’s learning and lead to unsatisfactory school and family trajectories. The literature review allows us to contrast scientific evidence with the experiences lived by families, deepening the understanding of these barriers.

1.1. An approach to dyslexia

The International Dyslexia Association (IDA, 2002) defines it as a specific learning difficulty of neurological origin, characterized by difficulties in the accuracy and fluency of written word recognition and by spelling, decoding, and spelling problems. Its prevalence in schools has been estimated at 5%-15% of students (Soriano-Ferrer and Piedra, 2014), and it is for this reason that this heterogeneous group increasingly presents a relevant presence in our classrooms.

According to the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2014), the differential diagnosis of dyslexia is included within neurodevelopmental disorders, as a learning disorder with difficulties in reading and written expression. Current research focuses on the development of phonological representations (Cuetos, Soriano, and Rello, 2019) and how these components relate to learning to read and write and, consequently, to dyslexia (Cuetos, Suárez-Coalla, Molina, and Llenderrozas, 2015). Students diagnosed with dyslexia may experience difficulties with reading comprehension and spelling (Defior, Serrano, and Gutiérrez-Palma, 2015), leading to moments of low self-esteem and emotional-behavioral problems (Zuppardo, Serrano, and Pirrone, 2017).

Microsoft Word – art 6 RIEJS 8(2).docx

Therefore, adequate detection of these difficulties is necessary to avoid school failure and prevent the suffering of the child and family (Cuetos et al., 2015), as research shows that early intervention is much more effective around 4 – 4.5 years of age, due to the brain’s plasticity that characterizes the early years of life (Cuetos et al., 2015; Hatcher, Hulme, and Snowling, 2004; Papanicolaou et al., 2003).

1.2. Dyslexia and education

Given the prevalence and needs of students with dyslexia in classrooms, it is essential for teachers to deepen their understanding of reading acquisition. A relevant study in this regard is by Echegaray and Soriano (2016), conducted in the Valencian Community with practicing and pre-service teachers. They conclude that teachers, both experienced and inexperienced, are unaware of the emotional and/or social problems of students with dyslexia, neurofunctional and neuroanatomical alterations, and laterality issues. Furthermore, pre-service teachers hold the belief that dyslexia can be cured. Some of their findings align with the study by Binks et al. (2012) on teachers’ knowledge of reading, concluding that they lack solid knowledge about the different aspects of language (phonetics, morphology, syntax, and phonology), which form the basis of reading instruction. This particularly impacts students with dyslexia.

Other empirical research has demonstrated the effectiveness of multisensory teaching in developing reading skills. Jeyasekaran (2015) examined the effectiveness of using all sensory channels with children with dyslexia in India. Their findings indicate a statistically significant difference before and after the intervention, with a 12% improvement in reading.

In the same direction as the previous one is the research by Soliman and Al-Madani (2017). The main objective is to examine, in a safe emotional climate, the effects of multisensory instruction on the reading, fluency, and comprehension of 4th-grade Arab children with dyslexia. The results reveal that there were statistically significant differences in the post-tests of fluency (which include reading accuracy and speed) and reading comprehension between the control and experimental groups; in the latter, the successful intervention is evidenced through activities that engage the different senses.

ICTs are an adaptable, customizable, and motivating element for students, and they favor multisensory methodology. For Gasparini and Culén (2012), their use in classrooms encourages students with dyslexia to read and minimizes the stigma produced by their difficulties; this is the most relevant conclusion they draw when conducting a case study comparing memory and comprehension when working with tablets or on paper; the results show better reading test scores when using technological tools.

Anestis (2015) designed two non-standardized tests, one in digital format and the other on paper, including basic mathematical operations. Students with dyslexia obtained 18% more correct answers on the test taken with a computer; on the other hand, the control group did not show significant differences in their performance; furthermore, it concludes that the use of ICTs in the evaluation process can contribute to better concentration.

1.3. Family and emotional state

Microsoft Word – art 6 RIEJS 8(2).docx

Robledo and García (2014) conducted a comparative study to evaluate the family climate in three groups of children: with dyslexia, ADHD, and normal school performance (RN). The results reveal that in the first two groups there is more tension. It is deduced from this that families with a child with dyslexia or ADHD have a persistent concern regarding their children’s needs, dedicating the most time available to the child, outside of school hours, to completing academic tasks and attending specific therapies to alleviate the consequences of an inadequate or insufficient school process. They also conclude that parents and children belonging to RN groups are much more optimistic compared to the other two. The groups of students with dyslexia and ADHD perceive low expectations from their families and teachers, which leads them to have an unfavorable opinion of their own academic performance.

Alexander-Passe (2007) investigates the stress levels of children with dyslexia at school. The results suggest differences between groups, with and without dyslexia. The latter experience high stress, which occurs in interactions with teachers, regarding exams and academic performance; consequently, emotions (fear, shyness, and loneliness) and physiological manifestations (nausea, tremors, or rapid heartbeats) are generated that harm their self-concept. The study also shows that they consider the impression they make on their peers and do not enjoy high self-esteem.

Bryan, Burstein, and Bryan (2001), through the analysis of a set of research, explain the reality that families experience regarding their children’s homework with dyslexia. These tasks are usually structured in a way that requires the skills in which they have the greatest difficulties, such as comprehension, writing, decoding…, leading to lower performance. In this sense, the help of a family member becomes a basic element; help that, due to the frustration it entails, ends up generating discomfort and discord around school tasks, demotivation of the children, and doubts from parents about their self-efficacy to help them.

In the same vein, Zuppardo, Serrano, and Pirrone (2017), in their study with a sample of 25 students diagnosed with dyslexia and dysorthography and 10 without reading and writing difficulties, define an emotional-behavioral profile of children with dyslexia who show low self-esteem and behavioral psychological distress (anxiety) caused mainly by traditional teaching proposals at school.

2. Method

The position we adopt in this study is part of the wide range of possibilities offered by the qualitative research approach. The biographical-narrative method is what allows us to delve into, as Van Manen (2003) points out, the significant experiences of daily life, those of families whose children have been diagnosed with dyslexia. This approach allows us to analyze the relationships between specific situations and their contexts (Álvarez and San Fabián, 2012) and, subsequently, to transform oral word (voices) into written word, capturing the meanings of these unique experiences. In the end, we build a narrative composed of micro-narratives in accordance with the requirements of educational research and its ethical components; a particular construction that arises from the contrast between the researchers and between them and the literature review.

It is worth noting that the researchers share a common interest, stemming from our experiences: in schools, in secondary education centers, at university, with families, and with other researchers on the topics of both dyslexia and inclusive education. Our areas of work intersect over time and converge in a dialogue that is enriched by our own experiential contributions.

The basic tool for information gathering is the semi-structured interview as a means to “gather narrative experiential material that at some point can serve as a resource for developing richer and deeper knowledge about a human phenomenon” (Van Manen, 2003, p. 84). Following the same author’s recommendations, we decided it should be semi-structured to avoid being led “by interviews that go everywhere and nowhere at the same time” (p. 84), with the aim of answering a key question: what is the experience of families regarding the school trajectories of their sons and daughters with a dyslexia diagnosis?

Procedure

The participants were parents (mothers or fathers) with sons and daughters with dyslexia who have had or have a connection with the association Dyslexia and Family (DISFAM). From an initial list of 10 families who, for certain circumstances, were deemed more accessible, contact was made by phone with 6 who agreed to participate. In the first phone contact, the following issues were explained: introduction of the speaker, the purpose of the call, and the aim of the study. Once voluntary collaboration was accepted, a date, time, and place were established to conduct the interview, considering the specific needs of the participants.

Before starting, the interviewees were presented with the informed consent document. It was read aloud and signed in duplicate. During the interviews, a respectful interaction was maintained at all times, creating a climate of empathy and trust, in addition to firmly adhering to the ethical criteria that must guide any research in education. All interviews were recorded on audio and transcribed in their entirety.

The questions asked in the interview, which emerge from the information extracted from the literature review, revolve around three phases as specified in the following table.

Blocks	Content of the questions
1. Initial contextualization phase	Number of children. Ages. Grade level they are currently attending. Has repeated any grade. Age at which dyslexia is diagnosed. Who performs the diagnosis.
2. Intermediate phase of emotionally charged questions	Moments and suspicions that suggest a difficulty. How was this process, were it the teachers who observed the difficulties and contacted the families, or was it the families who went to the school to share information. Families’ journey from fearing a difficulty until dyslexia is detected. How the decision to make the diagnosis arises, who suggests. What feeling does the diagnosis result produce in the family and the children. What is the reaction of teachers to the diagnosis. What happens at school after the diagnosis. How are exams and homework handled. What support, material and human, is received from the school. What difficulties do families currently encounter in the school.
3. Final synthesis phase	Vision for the academic future of children with dyslexia. Information considered relevant to add.

Table 1. Interview content and the phases in which it is developed. Source: own elaboration.

From the selection and reduction of the information provided by the participants, the categories of analysis emerge. The steps involved in this procedure require a process of focusing on thematic units that are notable and in line with the research objective. The coding of these units is the first phase we carry out to select the information through repeated readings of the interviews. Progressively, we group the information into categories (reduction phase) around which the analysis of the results will pivot. To do this, we create a double-entry matrix, in which we place literal information from the participants, already coded, in each category. The four global categories resulting from this process are: the diagnosis, the teachers’ attitudes, the classroom methodology, the emotional state of the families and their children.

The participants in the study have been:

Family 1: composed of a mother and father with two children aged seven and ten. Currently, the eldest daughter is studying primary school at a public school; it is suspected that she may have high abilities in addition to dyslexia.
Family 2: whose family unit consists of four members, father and mother with a thirteen-year-old daughter who is in her second year of ESO at a secondary school. She completed primary education at a public school, the same one where her seven-year-old brother, diagnosed with dyslexia and ADHD, is currently in his second year of primary school.
Family 3: large family consisting of father and mother with four children with dyslexia, aged twenty-eight, twenty, seventeen, and twelve. The 12-year-old daughter is enrolled in a private school that follows the English education system.
Family 4: consisting of father and mother, currently separated. The eldest daughter, 17 years old, is in a secondary school studying for her baccalaureate, and the youngest, 12 years old, is not placed at a specific level, as he attends an active school; previously, he attended a cooperative school, the same one as his sister.
Family 5: composed of a father and mother with three children aged 27, 13, and 11. Currently, the eldest is studying away from home, the second daughter is in secondary school, and the third son is in the sixth year of primary school and has a diagnosis of dyslexia.
Family 6: a family where the father and mother are separated. They have three children, two aged 9 and one aged 20 with dyslexia and dyscalculia. He has attended three public schools and is currently finishing basic vocational training.

3. Results

We organize the results around three dimensions: misunderstandings, classroom practices, and emotional effects. The first two relate to barriers, while the last one addresses the impacts these barriers have within the family sphere (parents and children). Each of these sections brings together evidence from the participants’ experiences; their voices give meaning to this structure.

To identify the families, we follow the order of presentation previously established, identifying the parent (M: mother or P: father) who participated in the interview: F1M, F2M, F3M, F4M, F5P, and F6P.

3.1. Family-school misunderstandings

One of the first disagreements to which families refer relates to the repeated denial by teachers to accept the diagnosis of dyslexia, which generally comes from professionals outside the schools. This denial, in some cases, translates into expressing good intentions for change in the classroom without real effects.

The school responds that they will do everything we have told them… “Don’t worry, we know what to do.” But in reality, nothing has been done. […] The tutor refused from the beginning to accept our daughter’s difficulty and expressed “she’s not keeping up, she’s not like her friends.” He accepted that he was not going to do anything about her dyslexia. (F2M)

Don’t worry, we are used to dyslexias, we are trained, they told us, the same old story… (F3M)

The teacher says he is open, but that is not what he should tell us, but rather that he is open to our son; it is he who should say how he sees it and what things he believes we as parents can contribute. (F5P)

The tutor says that our daughter has no difficulties, denying the diagnosis itself. (F1M)

Comments such as the following reinforce the previous idea; the lack of knowledge that tutors in schools have about dyslexia and how it affects learning is emphasized, reflected in expressions from teachers lacking sensitivity. This is how they express it.

The child needs more encouragement… (F4M)

We asked the teacher why he had failed Catalan and he gave us a very old-fashioned answer: he’ll have to pull himself together. (F5P)

Your son should study more and try harder, he has to put his nose to the grindstone and he’ll get it; this is what they told us, but the resources were the same for him as for the rest of his class […]. (F6P)

The negative attitude shown by a parent to coordinate with an external professional who works with their child outside of school hours is significant.

It would have been good for them if she had explained how to help our son, but the teachers have the power to say yes or no, they set the guidelines, and they haven’t wanted to coordinate with this professional’s proposal. (F5P)

An adverse attitude is also reflected in the communication processes between teachers. Parents have to assume the role of ‘bridge’, between teachers from different grades or the same level.

It’s complicated, I mean the coordination. The following year you have to explain everything again when there’s a change of teacher, and it feels like you’re selling your own bike. (F1M)

The coordination between them doesn’t work, it’s an effort that the family has to make, this isn’t natural. (F5P)

A mother recounts an episode experienced with a teacher, with a threatening attitude and lack of communication with her classmates; it has to do with failing a subject for two consecutive terms.

It’s just that your son doesn’t know English. I looked at her and said: haven’t you looked at his papers, where he comes from, what he has… and she said: ‘we pass all the information here…’ She hadn’t read anything at all. And the second semester had passed and she said the same thing. I thought: we’re leaving here. (F3M)

Finally, it is worth highlighting a disagreement caused by the teachers’ statements regarding learning possibilities. In the words of the families, these statements are harmful, progressively destroy self-esteem, as if the overall behavior of denying difficulties that characterizes school experiences were not enough.

A teacher told my daughter that she had disappointed her a lot because of something she hadn’t done well. (F1M)

At school they told them, ‘You won’t be able to, why are you going to do it? there’s no point in even trying… you won’t be able to.’ (F3M)

3.2. Classroom Practices: Tell Me What You Do and I’ll Tell You How You Teach

ICT used as a resource can facilitate learning for students with dyslexia. However, some teachers believe that its use creates inequality compared to their peers, as expressed by the following family.

I said: “Can they bring a recorder?” NO… and a computer? NO, because they are learning to write. NO, everything was NO because this is making differences and because there are other students with dyslexia here and they don’t use these kinds of things. It wasn’t just that they wouldn’t let us have a computer, it was that they wouldn’t let us bring one from home. (F4M)

This restriction makes no sense considering that technological tools are useful and a necessary resource for doing homework and for studying at home; resources that, moreover, are part of their daily lives.

She reads, records it, and then listens to it. She finds her own ways to get there… (F2M)

The ‘repeating a grade’ measure is commonplace in schools. It’s a solution whose consequences fall on the student, without questioning the teachers’ responsibility in this measure. All families express disagreement with this response because if teachers have not worked throughout the course considering the students’ needs, there is no point in repeating.

I insisted a lot that my daughter in primary school should not repeat a grade, and with a lot of fighting, I managed to get her approved until second grade… ‘as long as you are not doing everything she really needs, she will keep passing’; they needed my signature to repeat. (F2M)

The methodology used in the primary or secondary schools where the students from the interviewed families have attended or are currently attending is mostly traditional, based on the textbook.

Yes, they used books. In schools there wasn’t really a system without books or with projects or anything, it was a totally traditional system. (F3M)

One of the mothers (F1) explains that the methodology used varies depending on the subject. While there are subjects that work on projects, in language subjects, the textbook is used as the backbone of the class.

Families demand adaptations to traditional experiences that are the same for everyone. Adaptations that, after all, do not mean extra effort for the teaching staff.

The girl was a total failure, but why was she a total failure? Because no adaptations were made. (F2M)

They have the right to an adaptation, and I demand that this adaptation be made, why? Because they have the right, period. They are my children and I want their rights to be fulfilled, there’s no other way… (F3M)

In some cases, children are removed from the classroom to receive support, even though the families do not agree.

He leaves the classroom. But he loses content, information… (F2M)

Families are the first to express that their children need a different way of learning, as they observe that the one offered by the school is not the most suitable for them.

Repeating content, as I learned, doesn’t work for him. Everything acoustic and visual works for him. (F6P)

Homework is another battle horse. These tasks cause, as indicated, that their children must dedicate many hours to fulfill this obligation, leaving no time for other activities.

Homework is an exaggerated thing in primary school, the girl used to eat and sit down to do it, and it was eleven at night and she was still going… I had to take her out of swimming and dancing because she didn’t have time.

She spends two hours on a small piece when the others are… the time difference is very evident. The others do in 10 minutes what she takes an hour to do.

Families are very critical of homework because it generates a lot of tension at home due to the excessive time that children, and parents themselves, often have to dedicate to it.

For me, doing homework right now with my son takes up the whole afternoon to do one sheet. (F2M)

My daughter gets nervous and frustrated when she’s doing her homework. (F3M)

There were shouts, there was tension at home. I didn’t understand why one day my daughter could write a word correctly and the next day she couldn’t. And how is it that yesterday she knew how to write her name and today she doesn’t? We had fights at home! because I scolded her a lot. Of course, this was before she was diagnosed with dyslexia. (F2M)

The type of homework for weekends or holidays is also discussed, very traditional and mechanical activities, which require a high time commitment.

Weekend homework is prehistoric… you have to read that book, but the book has so much content that she can’t, and I sit next to her and she reads, and I ask her about the characters in the book, which part she liked the most… The same thing every week, we’ve been doing it for 2 years. (F2M)

3.3. Emotional effect on families

The results reveal the state of mind of parents and children. They reflect anguish over what they have experienced and continue to experience with the barriers they encounter at school, which are affecting their children’s emotional state.

The school does not understand the harm it causes, because if they were aware, they would not do it. (F4M)

It is not right that they are kicked around like this. (F3M)

When the diagnosis is confirmed, it is a delicate moment for families. They narrate their experience of unease and sadness.

It leaves the family very weak. (F1M)

The diagnosis of my daughter affected me more than that of my son; I couldn’t stop crying because I didn’t want her to suffer. With my son, I took it differently. (F2M)

We all had a really bad time, honestly, terrible, seeing, moreover, your children’s decline, with the pressure at those ages… (F3M)

After the ruling, families expect a change from teachers, and yet they continue with their usual practices. This causes desperation and tension, which sometimes leads to family-school confrontation.

They told us we were bad parents, they make you feel like bad parents, and they tell you that the girl is suffering a lot, that the girl’s problem is that she’s not catching up because she sees that all her friends are already reading and she was just starting. (F2M)

The fight between the school and me began. I understand that they thought I was annoying, that I was overprotecting my son, that the child is spoiled… What happens is that at some point, with so much confrontation and so much exhaustion, and everything… you can’t take it anymore. (F4M)

The truth is that at the end of this course I’ve thrown in the towel, I can’t take it anymore, I prefer to dedicate myself more to my son than to try to make a change at school. […] we have made the decision to maintain a certain marginality, we have an adequate formal relationship, we have taken the position of non-confrontation, to finish primary school well. (F5P)

The barriers during their children’s schooling period rekindle their concern for the present and their academic future. They are clear that their future will depend heavily on the teachers they encounter in their paths, and this uncertainty causes greater anguish for families.

You can’t be worried about the teacher your child will have each year; every school year is a thought of, ‘And who will it be next year?’ Because if it’s this one or that one, we’re lost. (F4M)

Families face their children’s experiences at school with great concern, where they must confront continuous obstacles that undermine their mood and health.

We started to see that he was really down and with the beginnings of depression… he said nothing was wrong, but he kept his backpack on behind him and entered school dragging his feet with such reluctance, such sadness, such a feeling… that it hurt me to leave him there. (F3M)

My son didn’t want to go to school. Where have you ever seen a child not want to go to school with his classmates, to learn… it’s very hard. My son, a child who stopped dancing, always hid, always hid under the tables […], he would go to school and they would tell me that the child behaved terribly, every day they took him out into the hallway. And I would say: “you don’t understand anything.” (F4M)

4. Discussion and conclusions

Teachers in our education system show a lack of knowledge about dyslexia, as already highlighted in the research by Echegaray and Soriano (2016). This lack of knowledge has been reflected in this study through the generalized idea of repetition as a solution to difficulties without questioning classroom practices. The existence of dyslexia is sometimes denied, treating it as mere difficulties that any child may experience during their school journey. Repeating a grade is not the solution; the remedy lies in a profound transformation of the education system, which should be obligated to welcome all children regardless of their particular differences.

The lack of information and training among teachers hinders adequate attention to the needs of this group of students to achieve successful learning in daily classroom action (Bueno, 2017). According to Blanco (2009), the difficulties these students face will accompany them throughout their lives, and repeating a curriculum will not change the way they process information. They need specific learning tools and alternative ways to access information, such as ICT, as these enable personalization to students’ needs.

This lack of knowledge is doubly affected by the attitude of teachers who wrongly focus their attention on students’ difficulties, often making them invisible and, consequently, frustrating their efforts to learn. An attitude that is reinforced by the practices they develop in their classrooms, aimed at an ideal student, with a traditional methodology that only benefits some students, leaving the rest out. The group of students with dyslexia is disadvantaged by cultures, policies, and practices that focus “merely on their failures and not on how to meet their needs” (Forteza and Moreno, 2017, p. 42).

It is essential to approach teaching with an open attitude to change, to the inquiry of new ways of doing things in school, trusting in the learning possibilities of each and every student, and even more so, for those who may be more vulnerable to exclusion processes, due to their initial difficulties which are not adequately addressed in schools. Conversely, an attitude that weakens is a powerful barrier because it limits the learning of students with dyslexia, and also of all students; an attitude that generates rejection towards school, as we have already seen, and affects the self-esteem and self-concept of children with dyslexia from primary education onwards, leading them to internalize that they are ‘stupid’, ‘lazy’, ‘incapable of learning and studying’.

An outdated system that focuses almost exclusively on the textbook hinders students with dyslexia from accessing learning opportunities (Asensio, 2016). The diversity of students in the classroom requires methodologies that integrate the use of various sensory channels for learning (Jeyasekaran, 2015; Soliman and Al-Madani, 2017), and the use of varied resources, such as ICT, which facilitate the teaching and learning process (Anestis, 2015).

Homework, for its part, engenders dissatisfaction in families because it restricts their leisure and free time needs. Because it is based on reading and writing tasks, precisely where the difficulties lie. Because it creates dependence on adults, and a climate of tension and frustration within the family that only aggravates the situation (Bryan, Burstein, and Bryan, 2001).

Finally, we want to emphasize that diagnosis acts as a barrier when unfavorable attitudes of teachers, clinging to traditional methodologies, increase low expectations of success for students, focusing on expecting their failure. Diagnosis that, often, comes late and poorly as specific difficulties go unnoticed for years (Armenteros, 2017); thus, difficulties are magnified and children develop negative feelings about themselves. On the other hand, to the economic burden of carrying out a diagnosis, as families manifest, is added the increase involved in resorting to external instances (tutors) to minimize the consequences of what is not done in school, or to help their children with emotional therapies (Alexander-Passe, 2007; Robledo and Barcía, 2014).

To conclude, as a final reflection, we offer a series of thoughts revolving around four axes: learning, attitudes, barriers, and pain, related to the analytical categories established in this study.

On learning

We infer from all that has been said that the families’ unease largely corresponds to the depersonalization of teaching referred to in the introduction. The homogeneity of methodologies and resources, intended for all children to learn the same thing at the same time and place, translates into ‘therapeutic interventions’ (outside of school) in the hope that students with dyslexia will adapt to a preconceived design of normality.

We believe that one of the causes of depersonalization is that teachers do not know, or only superficially know, how learning originates, let alone how to facilitate it for children and young people with dyslexia. We recall a phrase by Claxton formulated over 30 years ago: “if teachers do not know what learning consists of and how it occurs, they are just as likely to foster it as to hinder it” (1987, p. 214). Drawing on the contributions of the literature previously cited, Binks et al.’s (2012) assertion that teachers do not deeply understand how language is formed, which will disproportionately affect students with dyslexia, stands out.

What Pozo (1999) expressed several decades ago is relevant: “Tango is a dance for two. If teachers move on one side and learners on the other, it will be difficult for learning to be effective” (p. 336). Thus, a consequence of this ‘not knowing’ is the lack of recognition of students’ personal biographies, leading to learning experiences that may be valuable for some, but not for all. Satisfactory school trajectories invoke the acceptance that the quality of learning depends on the teacher’s competence, also admitting that learning is an emotional act. Teaching and learning are, therefore, inseparable verbs; the progress and success of the learner depend on the interaction established by the teacher with them, on their competence as educators, and on the confidence in the learning potential that all students possess.

Based on the results, it is evident, in line with the reviewed literature, that the lack of or inadequate responses to the needs of students with dyslexia in school exerts a negative force on emotions, impacting motivation, self-esteem, and performance (Zuppardo, Serrano, and Pirrone, 2017; Robledo and García, 2014; Alexander-Passe, 2007). For the psychological well-being of all students, it is highly relevant to emphasize the necessary creation of safe, welcoming, and participatory learning environments, where each and every one can develop their talents to the fullest.

About teachers and their attitudes

We reiterate, in accordance with the study’s results and with Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson (2006), that the biggest barrier to their children’s progress is the teachers. They are the ones who end up being barrier builders, by denying them the right to an inclusive and equitable education. Echoing the words of Pujolàs (2015, pp. 20-21):

Inclusion means welcoming and valuing. For this reason, a school that welcomes everyone must also be a school that values everyone. Feeling welcomed and valued, loved, esteemed, in a school, is a prerequisite, essential […]. If we want our students to feel valued, we must value them, we must find the positive things they possess […].

This discourse refers us to the attitudes that must accompany quality teaching and learning processes. Valuing children and their families implies forms of communication that interact with high expectations, deploying strategies and methodologies that draw on the capacity that everyone has to learn. In this sense, what a father expresses highlights what remains to be done: “I remember a PT (acronym for Therapeutic Pedagogy) asked us if our son had been born on a Sunday, because he was very lazy. The first diagnosis many families heard.” Families who vociferously demand a different perspective from teachers towards their children.

Pennac (2008) uses the metaphor of the “burden” to refer to the accumulation of constraints, frustrations, fears… that act as a slab blocking the growth of students (whom he refers to as “duds”). It is significant that he speaks of teachers as a determining factor in school success or failure; he alludes to their ‘knowing how to be’ and their ‘knowing how to do’:

Our “bad” students (those said to have no future) never go to school alone. What enters the classroom is an onion: layers of sorrow, fear, unease, resentment, anger, unmet desires, furious resignations accumulated on a background of a shameful past, a threatening present, a condemned future. Look at them, here they come, bodies half-formed and their families on their backs in their backpacks. In reality, class can only begin when they put the burden down and the onion has been peeled. It’s hard to explain, but often just a look, a kind word, a confident, clear, and stable adult phrase is enough to dissolve these sorrows, ease these spirits, and place them in a strictly indicative present. (p. 60)

On the barriers to advancing inclusion

As Echeita (2017) indicates, it is non-negotiable to examine the multiple barriers that limit students’ learning and participation. Identifying and reducing them “is an important task for policies and practice at all levels, in order to ensure that no student is at a disadvantage” (Porter and Towell, 2017, p. 10).

It is a committed stance with the rights to equity and equality: to continue evidencing exclusionary practices or situations (in research articles, at conferences, in scientific meetings, in contacts with educational administrations, in the training of teachers at all educational levels…); and to work with families, in order to “empower ourselves” together in the fight against inequalities, injustices, and discrimination, based on the belief that inclusive education is the way forward.

In this sense, we can well say that we fully share the words of López (2012): “Knowing the barriers that prevent the learning and participation of some girls and boys in the classroom is precisely the ethical commitment of the discourse of the culture of diversity” (p.131). And those of Murillo and Hernández-Castilla (2014) when they express: “those of us who work in the educational world have an ethical responsibility to fight for a more just world” (p. 29).

The analysis of the barriers carried out in this study highlights the lack of communication between the school and families; fractures in this regard are an impediment to learning and participation. We emphasize in this regard that it is necessary to revive this connection, considering “the importance of building synergistic relationships between school, family, and community, as one of the key factors for advancing towards more inclusive systems and schools” (Duk and Murillo, 2016, p. 14). To this end, it is essential that the teaching and management team adopt a cooperative attitude with families, listening to their proposals and contributions and facilitating their feeling appreciated and involved in their children’s school education (Parody et al., 2019).

About the pain that school produces

“For many children, the experience of school is the daily experience of humiliation and pain.” With this quote from Slee (2012, p. 29), a statement he recalls from his special education training period, we assert that children with dyslexia suffer at school, as does their family environment.

“My heart doesn’t understand why childhood, the sweetest stage of life, has to be a bad memory because of a learning difficulty.” This father, who wrote a heartbreaking text in 20181 about his experience with severe dyslexia, is not wrong, because his son was the ‘object,’ not the subject, of a school that broke him, that annulled him, reaching the extreme of such vulnerability that they wondered if it was worth it for him to continue in it to suffer. It was the appearance of a teacher, his tutor in the fourth year of primary school, who saved him from the dark hole he was immersed in (as his father indicates, “he had hit rock bottom, and so had we”).

Hope is there, in that teacher who believes in their profession, in education, in the capacity of all children to learn… In this study, we have made visible some barriers from the perspective of families; those that day by day, along with their children, endure the mismatches of an education system that remains anchored in old ways of thinking and doing. We trust that the time will come when we can only write narratives that speak of the desire to learn motivated by teachers who wish to teach, by recognizing everyone’s strengths to successfully drive new learning. And for this to happen, “we do not need schools that carry out activities and actions that contribute to making the school fairer. We urgently need schools that are fair in their fullness and in depth” (Carneros and Murillo, 2017, p. 146).

Before concluding, we want to highlight some limitations of the study conducted. On the one hand, the absence of triangulation of information collection sources; the voice of students diagnosed with dyslexia and of practicing teachers would complete the contrast cycle to obtain a broad and interconnected view of the barriers that hinder or impede learning and participation; and, on the other hand, it would be advisable to increase the number of participants to be able to relate and compare the information with contextual aspects: age of the children, educational level, type of school (public, subsidized, private)… It is also essential to consider the exclusive focus on barriers in this work as a limitation; the scope could be broadened, according to Echeita (2013), by incorporating as an objective for future research the analysis of facilitators to achieve improvements in policies, cultures, and practices from the perspective of inclusive education, thus reinforcing the effort and development of innovations that are being carried out in many schools and classrooms that promote the presence, participation, and achievement of all students.

“Change is difficult, but possible” (Freire, 2001, p. 126).

References

Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London: Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203967157
Alexander-Passe, N. (2007). The sources and manifestations of stress amongst school-aged dyslexics, compared with sibling controls. Dyslexia, 14, 291-313.https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.351
Álvarez, C. and San Fabián, J. L. (2012). The choice of case study in educational research. Gazeta de Antropología, 28(1), 1–12.
American Psychiatric Association. (2014). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. DSM-5. Madrid: Editorial Médica Panamericana.
Anestis, E. (2015). The effects of using information and communication technologies instead of traditional paper based test, during the examination process, on students with dyslexia. Procedia Computer Science, 65, 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.105
Echeita, G. and Domínguez, A. B. (2011). Inclusive education. Argument, paths and crossroads. Aula. Revista de Pedagogía de la Universidad de Salamanca, 17, 23-35.
Forteza, D. and Moreno, F. (2017). Processes that hinder inclusion in compulsory secondary education. Many shadows and still few lights. Aula Abierta Journal, 46, 41-48.https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.46.2.2017.41-48
Freire, P. (2001). Pedagogy of indignation. Madrid: Morata.
Gasparini, A. A. and Culén, A. L. (January, 2012). Tablet PCs- an assistive technology for students with reading difficulties? Paper presented at The Fifth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions. University of Valencia.
Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C. and Snowling, M. J. (2004). Explicit phoneme training combined with phonic reading instruction helps young children at risk of reading failure. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(2), 338-358.7610.2004.00225.
Jeyasekaran, J. M. (2015). Effectiveness of visual auditory kinesthetic tactile technique on reading level among children with dyslexia at Helikx open school and learning centre, Salem. International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health, 4(3), 315-318.https://doi.org/10.5455/ijmsph.2015.0511201467
López, M. (2012). The inclusive school: an opportunity to humanize ourselves. Interuniversity Review of Teacher Training, 74(2), 131-160.
Murillo, F. J. and Hernández-Castilla, R. (2014). Leading fair schools for social justice. International Journal of Education for Social Justice, 3(2), 13-32.
Papanicolaou, A. C., Simos, P. G., Breier, J. I. and Fletcher, J. M., Foorman, B. R., Francis, D., … and Davis, R. N. (2003). Brain mechanisms for reading in children with and without dyslexia: A review of studies of normal development and plasticity. Developmental Neuropsychology, 24(3), 593-612. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN242&3_05
Parody, L. M., Santos, M., Alcalá del Olmo, M. J. and Isequilla, E. (2019). The educational challenge of the 21st century: Relevance of family-school cooperation. Espiral. Cuadernos del Profesorado, 12(24), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.25115/ecp.v12i24.2284
Pennac, D. (2008). Mal de escuela. Barcelona: Mondadori.
Porter, G. L. and Towell, D. (2017). Promoting inclusive education. Keys to transformational change in education systems. Retrieved from inclusive education.html
Pozo, J. I. (1999). Learners and teachers: The new culture of learning. Madrid: Alianza.
Pujolàs, P. (2015). Fire marks. Lessons in pedagogy. Vic: UVic Publishing Service.
Robledo, P. and García, J. (2014). Family context of students with learning difficulties or ADHD, perceptions of parents and children. Estudios sobre Educación, 26, 149-173.https://doi.org/10.15581/004.26.149-173
Slee, R. (2012). The extraordinary school. Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Madrid: Morata.
Soliman, M. S. and Al-Madani, F. M. (2017). The effects of multisensory-based instruction combined with brain-compatible environment techniques on reading fluency and reading comprehension of fourth-grade students with dyslexia. Croatian Journal of Education, 19(2), 363-397.https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v19i2.2190Armenteros, M. D. (2017). Main learning difficulties in mainstream primary education classrooms in the region of Murcia. International Journal of Support for Inclusion, Speech Therapy, Society and Multiculturalism, 3(1), 73-90.
Asensio, M. J. (2016). The textbook: A barrier to the development of the inclusive school (Doctoral thesis). University of the Balearic Islands. Palma de Mallorca.
International Dyslexia Association (2002). IDA Dyslexia handbook. What every family should know. Baltimore, MD: IDA.
Azorín, C. M. & Sandoval, M. (2019). Supports for moving towards more inclusive education in schools: Analysis of guides for action. Siglo Cero, 50(271), 7-27.https://doi.org/10.14201/scero2019503727
Binks, E., Washburn, E., Malatesha, R., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(6), 526-536.https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.601434
Blanco, A. I. (2009). Dyslexia, school, and social exclusion: A study from sociology on special education. Configurações. Revista de Sociologia, 5, 1-25.
Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2015). Guide to inclusive education. Developing learning and participation in schools. Madrid: FUHEM/ OEI.
Bryan, T., Burstein, K., and Bryan, J. (2001). Students with learning disabilities: Homework problems and promising practices. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 167-180.https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3603_3
Bueno, D. (2017). Neuroscience for educators. Barcelona: Octaedro.
Carneros, S. and Murillo, F. J. (2017). Contributions of alternative schools to social and environmental justice: Self-concept, self-esteem, and respect. REICE. Ibero-American Journal on Quality, Effectiveness and Change in Education, 15(3), 129-150.https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2017.15.3.007
Claxton, G. (1987). Live and Learn. Madrid: Alianza Psicología.
Cuetos, F., Soriano, M. and Rello, L. (2019). Dyslexia, neither distraction nor laziness. All the keys to understanding the disorder. Madrid: La esfera de los libros.https://doi.org/10.4321/S1139- 76322015000300002
Cuetos, F., Suárez-Coalla, P., Molina, M. I. and Llenderrozas, M. C. (2015). Test for the early detection of reading and writing learning difficulties. Revista Pediatría Atención Primaria, 17(66), 99-107.
Defior, S., Serrano, F. and Gutiérrez-Palma, N. (2015). Specific learning difficulties. Madrid: Síntesis.
Duk, C. and Murillo, F. J. (2016). Inclusion as a dilemma. Latin American Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(1), 11-14.https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-73782016000100001
Echegaray, J. and Soriano, M. (2016). Teachers’ knowledge about developmental dyslexia: Educational implications. Aula Abierta, 44, 63-69.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aula.2016.01.001
Echeita, G. (2013). Educational inclusion and exclusion. Again, “voice and breakdown”. REICE. Ibero-American Journal on Quality, Effectiveness and Change in Education, 11(2), 99-118.
Echeita, G. (2017). Inclusive education. Smiles and tears. Aula Abierta Journal, 46, 17-24.https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.46.2.2017.17-24
Soriano-Ferrer, M. and Piedra, E. (2017). A review of the neurobiological bases of dyslexia in the adult population. Neurología, 32(1), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2014.08.003
Van Manen, M. (2003). Educational research and lived experience. Human science for a pedagogy of action and sensitivity. Barcelona: Idea Books.
Zuppardo, L., Serrano, F., and Pirrone, C. (2017). Delimiting the emotional-behavioral profile in children and adolescents with dyslexia. Reto XXI-Disability and Education, 1(1), 88-104.

Brief CV of the authors

Dolors Forteza
Degree in Pedagogy and PhD in Psychopedagogy from the UIB, where she has been a professor since 1990. Co-director of the official interuniversity Master’s Degree in Inclusive Education. Member of the Research Group on Inclusive School and Diversity (GREID) and collaborator in the Research Group on Global Health and Sustainable Human Development (SG_DHS). She has participated in various research projects and is the author of articles on attention to diversity. Her participation in national and international conferences is notable. Director of the Support Office and responsible for access and admission adaptations. Her main line of research is Inclusive Education from early childhood to university. She has held various management positions, including Dean of the Faculty of Education and Vice-Rector for Teaching. ORCID ID:https://orcid.org/0000-0002– 2053-9770. Email:dolorsforteza@uib.es.

Laura Fuster Coll
Graduate in Primary Education from the University of the Balearic Islands, with a mention in Musical and Artistic Education (2017). She completed the official Master’s degree in Inclusive Education at the same university (2018). She participated in a project by the Spanish Red Cross aimed at increasing the school success of children aged 6 to 16 facing social difficulties, focusing on the personal and social factors that promote it. She has attended various courses and conferences related to school improvement and active classroom methodologies. She is a volunteer for the Dyslexia and Family Association (DISFAM). She currently works as a substitute teacher. ORCID ID:https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2135-8832. Email: laura.f.95@live.com.

Francisca Moreno-Tallón
Graduate in Musical Education (2003), Bachelor’s Degree in Psychopedagogy (2012), and PhD in Inclusive Education and Socio-educational Care throughout the Life Cycle (2012) from the University of the Balearic Islands. She has completed stays at the University of Salamanca, the University of Oviedo, and Reykjavík University in Iceland. As an associate professor, she has taught in Psychopedagogy studies and currently in the Bachelor’s Degrees in Early Childhood and Primary Education; she has also taught postgraduate courses at the UIB and continuing education courses at the Teacher Training Centers. She belongs to the Research Group on Inclusive School and Diversity (GREID). Author of various articles and conference presentations. Her research interests include: inclusive education and active methodologies. ORCID ID:https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2923-4911. Email: francisca.moreno@uib.es.