The piling on Jamie Oliver is a bit much don't you think? I don't live in the UK, but in the US a few things are true. 1) The SoR movement has not solved the access to education problem for dyslexic students. Indeed, it has taken the focus off dyslexia (where the movement started with some very determined moms, yes moms, not teachers) and turned it to reforming tier 1 literacy education - a good goal, but not the sufficient for dyslexia. 2) There is in fact a good evidence base demonstrating that dyslexic brain organization is inherited, present from birth, and meaningfully different from non-dyslexic brain organization. There is also evidence (and need for further study) that dyslexic brain organization does confer some learning advantages. See Wolf et al (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11881-023-00297-1). If Oliver can bring attention to these problems, maybe folks should listen thoughtfully rather than poke fun. I hate the "expert" cult demeaning parents and advocates who have a lived experience that is vitally important.
Words matter. Satire is derisive. This is one among many derisive comments as I think you are aware. The mean girls have decided to put Jamie Oliver in his place. It’s dishonest to pretend your satire is not part of that.
You are incorrect to infer my awareness. I honestly have no idea of the 'mean' girls' you're alluding to.
Also, certainly *some* satire is derisive. Did you actually read my piece? It doesn't mention Jamie once expect to say it is pastiching an article he wrote.
His intervention is school meals a few years back was valuable. His insight as a chef meant that he was able to offer an important perspective on my school catering could be improved for not much more money and has made a positive impact overall.
This however doesn't mean that he is entitled to make suggestion on areas he is less knowledgeable about without criticism. No one, no matter their perceived expertise, is entitle to that.
Then engage thoughtfully with the points he is making, a couple of which I pointed out in my original comment. What is the point of the satire, other than to attack the person instead of the content. I’d also remind all the “knowledgeable” people that they have decided which knowledge counts and dismissed perspectives from which they could learn. Parents, for example, face this expert derision all the time, yet they have a kind of knowledge that is important to this debate. I read your writing and consider you a thoughtful commentator, but this seems something else.
As a former classroom teacher in the UK, I thought it was pretty funny. In the UK, teachers are taught to differentiate for all students but the reality is that their isn't adequate funding to support the kind of education everyone would like. For example, in the last school where I taught there were only 2 TAs for 3 year groups.
I think the piece speaks to the frustration of has been celebrities telling teachers what they already know and the public at large telling teachers what we already know and have already been trying to address. Teachers and schools simply need more funding to support children in the ways that parents would like.
This is harsh! Education that everyone would “like”…education that parents would “like”. The word is needs. To say it just requires more funding is really missing the point and vastly simplifying the issues. As Jessica points out awareness is everything and celebrities helping to raise awareness and understanding is worth a tremendous amount…and may well lead to further funding. As a teacher of 33 years with 2 neurodivergent children I can fully attest to the real struggles of getting teens through a system which sets them up for failure. Nothing to do with what I would “like”. I am surprised, to be honest, at your tone and what I perceive to be a woeful lack of awareness here. Plus…what the hell do you have against Jamie Oliver? Has been? You sound peevish. It really doesn’t reflect well!
Sounds like you could use a celebrity spokesperson. In the US it took a viral radio documentary to galvanize support for big legislative change, even though parents and literacy experts had been pushing for years. Early universal screening, for example, is a necessity and if a celebrity can help you get it then why not ally with him?
Also, this isn't just about educational preference, or what people would "like." Dyslexic students are a significant portion of the student population and they have a right to an appropriate education. It's not the equivalent of an eating preference.
This really speaks to the tension I’ve been exploring—especially in my reflection on Flexibility Without Burden. How do we design systems that truly serve individuals without creating hidden burdens for those navigating or delivering them? It’s a big part of why I’m focused on now—because as we rethink equity and flexibility, especially in the age of AI, the decisions we make today will shape what’s sustainable and just for years to come. Thanks for naming this so thoughtfully.
The piling on Jamie Oliver is a bit much don't you think? I don't live in the UK, but in the US a few things are true. 1) The SoR movement has not solved the access to education problem for dyslexic students. Indeed, it has taken the focus off dyslexia (where the movement started with some very determined moms, yes moms, not teachers) and turned it to reforming tier 1 literacy education - a good goal, but not the sufficient for dyslexia. 2) There is in fact a good evidence base demonstrating that dyslexic brain organization is inherited, present from birth, and meaningfully different from non-dyslexic brain organization. There is also evidence (and need for further study) that dyslexic brain organization does confer some learning advantages. See Wolf et al (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11881-023-00297-1). If Oliver can bring attention to these problems, maybe folks should listen thoughtfully rather than poke fun. I hate the "expert" cult demeaning parents and advocates who have a lived experience that is vitally important.
How are you interpreting a single piece of satire as a “pile on”?
Words matter. Satire is derisive. This is one among many derisive comments as I think you are aware. The mean girls have decided to put Jamie Oliver in his place. It’s dishonest to pretend your satire is not part of that.
You are incorrect to infer my awareness. I honestly have no idea of the 'mean' girls' you're alluding to.
Also, certainly *some* satire is derisive. Did you actually read my piece? It doesn't mention Jamie once expect to say it is pastiching an article he wrote.
His intervention is school meals a few years back was valuable. His insight as a chef meant that he was able to offer an important perspective on my school catering could be improved for not much more money and has made a positive impact overall.
This however doesn't mean that he is entitled to make suggestion on areas he is less knowledgeable about without criticism. No one, no matter their perceived expertise, is entitle to that.
Then engage thoughtfully with the points he is making, a couple of which I pointed out in my original comment. What is the point of the satire, other than to attack the person instead of the content. I’d also remind all the “knowledgeable” people that they have decided which knowledge counts and dismissed perspectives from which they could learn. Parents, for example, face this expert derision all the time, yet they have a kind of knowledge that is important to this debate. I read your writing and consider you a thoughtful commentator, but this seems something else.
As a former classroom teacher in the UK, I thought it was pretty funny. In the UK, teachers are taught to differentiate for all students but the reality is that their isn't adequate funding to support the kind of education everyone would like. For example, in the last school where I taught there were only 2 TAs for 3 year groups.
I think the piece speaks to the frustration of has been celebrities telling teachers what they already know and the public at large telling teachers what we already know and have already been trying to address. Teachers and schools simply need more funding to support children in the ways that parents would like.
This is harsh! Education that everyone would “like”…education that parents would “like”. The word is needs. To say it just requires more funding is really missing the point and vastly simplifying the issues. As Jessica points out awareness is everything and celebrities helping to raise awareness and understanding is worth a tremendous amount…and may well lead to further funding. As a teacher of 33 years with 2 neurodivergent children I can fully attest to the real struggles of getting teens through a system which sets them up for failure. Nothing to do with what I would “like”. I am surprised, to be honest, at your tone and what I perceive to be a woeful lack of awareness here. Plus…what the hell do you have against Jamie Oliver? Has been? You sound peevish. It really doesn’t reflect well!
Sounds like you could use a celebrity spokesperson. In the US it took a viral radio documentary to galvanize support for big legislative change, even though parents and literacy experts had been pushing for years. Early universal screening, for example, is a necessity and if a celebrity can help you get it then why not ally with him?
Also, this isn't just about educational preference, or what people would "like." Dyslexic students are a significant portion of the student population and they have a right to an appropriate education. It's not the equivalent of an eating preference.
This really speaks to the tension I’ve been exploring—especially in my reflection on Flexibility Without Burden. How do we design systems that truly serve individuals without creating hidden burdens for those navigating or delivering them? It’s a big part of why I’m focused on now—because as we rethink equity and flexibility, especially in the age of AI, the decisions we make today will shape what’s sustainable and just for years to come. Thanks for naming this so thoughtfully.