Abstract
Ashton (1996) mounts an argument in favour of maintaining discrepancy‐based definitions of dyslexia. His position is potentially quite pernicious since it promulgates practice for which there is no evidence but which will have the effect of denying poor readers, identified as having moderate learning difficulties, resources and provision which will be made available to poor readers defined as having dyslexia. This article examines the issues raised by Ashton and highlights problems with his analysis and interpretation of the literature. It concludes with the suggestion that curriculum‐based approaches, which demand systematic observation of how children learn and respond to teaching over time, are the most appropriate means of assessing children's perceived difficulties in learning to read.