LAUSR

Because reading/writing is a fundamental tool for children's development, the main failure in its learning-developmental dyslexia-gives rise to many attempts to remediate. A recent remedy proposed by Mather (2022), published in Perceptual and Motor Skills [129(3), p. 468], is impressive through its radical nature and the extent of its consequences. It consists of delaying the teaching of writing to the age of 7-8 years, whereas, at present, most children in Western or comparable cultures learn to write even before compulsory school (generally at age six). In this article, I present a set of arguments whose addition and possible interaction lead, if not to reject, at least to restrict Mather's proposal. My arguments show both the inefficiency of Mather's proposal through two observational studies, its practical inapplicability in contemporary society, the importance of learning to write at least in the first year of elementary school, and the stinging past failure of a math reform of similar scope (i.e., learning to count). I also question the neurological theory underlying Mather's proposal, and, finally, I point out that, even if delaying learning to write were limited to students who Mather expects (at age six) to experience future dyslexia, this remedy would be inapplicable and probably ineffective.