The Word Blind Centre for Dyslexic Children opened in London in 1963. It was not only the first clinic established in Britain specifically to cater for children diagnosed with dyslexia. It was also intended to provide compelling evidence that a condition called dyslexia actually existed. The results of this work were published in Sandhaya Naidoo's path-breaking study, , which did exactly what its promoters had hoped it would, drawing on in-depth studies of 196 children to argue that dyslexia was indeed a distinct 'constitutional disorder'. Using the archives produced by Naidoo and other sources, my article offers the first-ever account of this pioneering enterprise, exploring the reasons the Centre was set up, the way it worked, and the consequences of its work. In particular, it focuses on the rationale for Naidoo's report, which only dealt with the experiences of middle-class boys. This choice is highly revealing, illuminating attitudes to reading, to class and gender, and to the competition for authority amongst the professionals who sought to explore all these issues. An intriguing case study in its own right, this also sets the scene for many of the themes that follow in this Special Issue.

Dyslexia is a difficulty in learning to decode (read aloud) and to spell. DSM5 classifies dyslexia as one form of neurodevelopmental disorder. Neurodevelopmental disorders are heritable, life-long conditions with early onset. For many years, research on dyslexia proceeded on the basis that it was a specific learning difficulty - specific meaning that the difficulty could not be explained in terms of obvious causes such as sensory problems or general learning difficulties (low IQ). However, the failure to find qualitative differences in reading, and phonological skills, between children with dyslexia and children with more general learning problems led this kind of 'discrepancy' definition to fall from favour. The Rose Review stated that dyslexia can occur across the IQ range and that poor decoding skills require the same kinds of intervention irrespective of IQ. In this paper, we argue that loosening the criteria for dyslexia has influenced common understanding of the condition and led to diagnostic confusion. In the longer term, the use of the term may need to change. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

The 'dyslexia debate' is resilient. In the media, a key component of the debate is the notion that dyslexia does not exist, popularised by a series of vociferous commentators. For them, dyslexia is an invention of overly-concerned parents, supported by a clique of private educational psychologists willing to offer a diagnosis - for a fee - even where no condition exists. In academic circles, especially psychology, dyslexia critiques are also present. In these, the principal argument is that the term 'dyslexia' is unhelpful - more an emotive word designed to attract funding, than a clearly defined scientific condition. Such arguments stand against other research in psychology, and discussion has become contentious. Largely missing from both sides of the debate, however, is a historical perspective. In this article, the origins of the dyslexia debate are traced, showing how queries about the term's efficacy have marked dyslexia's history since it was first identified in the 1870s. Through this tracing, this account seeks to move discussion beyond the existing either/or binary of dyslexia's existence.

This article reviews the extant research on the relationship between students and teachers in higher education across three main areas: the quality of this relationship, its consequences and its antecedents. The weaknesses and gaps in prior research are highlighted and the importance of addressing the multi-dimensional and context-bound nature of teacher-student relationships is proposed. A possible agenda for future research is outlined.

The prevalence of private supplementary tutoring (i.e. shadow education) is growing, particularly in nations with selective school exams. The hypothesis that tutoring attendance rises as pressure to perform increases has not yet been tested. Therefore, our research question is: does the likelihood of attending shadow education increase with an increase in educational system selectivity (in this case: stricter requirements to graduate)? Our study used an opportunity to study this question in the Dutch context, where performance standards on the nationwide secondary education exit exam were raised in 2011. We used data from two cohorts of Dutch exam year students: one before and one after the raised selectivity, hypothesising that the latter group had a higher likelihood of attending shadow education than the former. Results from Propensity Score Matching (PSM), applied to obtain cohorts as similar as possible on observable characteristics, provide support for our hypothesis. Our results on the Dutch policy change confirm that shadow education use might emerge at key moments of selection. In doing so, our study suggests that policymakers and researchers may want to include shadow education use in discussions on the merits and pitfalls of introducing more stringent performance standards into the education system.