The Dyslexia Debate: Professor Julian (Joe) Elliott

[debbie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qZ-ipCryrY

Lots of media attention on Professor Julian Elliott at the moment (Feb 2014).

I've written to him about my work on promoting the need for Alphabetic Code Charts in every primary classroom:

See www.alphabeticcodecharts.com for the many free versions provided to download.

I've also mentioned the worrying disdain that is so evident from so many professional bodies in teaching and literacy - often featured in the media...

...(not to mention the petitioning of various children's literature authors against the national Year One Phonics Screening Check).

If the teaching profession really grasped the nettle of what high-quality phonics teaching AND PRACTICE really could look like, we wouldn't have this perpetual cycle of 'diagnosing dyslexia'.

It's not that phonics isn't in English classrooms now, it is - but the content, quality, and understanding of effective practice, is still not at all guaranteed - sadly.

On the youtube video clip above, we see a couple of youngsters writing - note how they are holding their pencils.

This is nothing to do with 'weak' learners, but everything to do with the distinct lack of really good, attentive teaching and PRACTICE.

We have, for example, a culture nowadays in England of children being taught to write on mini whiteboards - either sitting cross-legged on the floor or even lying on their tummies.

They use whiteboard marker pens of various descriptions which lead to any old 'hold' of the implement and no need for any real care or attention to letter size and formation on lines and so on.

I often see children using hands or sleeves to clean their boards.

The other day I saw a programme where a lady was describing the circumstances behind a 21st birthday card being hand-made for her great grandfather during the war - and signed by many of his friends.

It was very heartfelt and the card itself was moving indeed.

Every signature was so very neat - immaculate infact - despite the war-torn context.

A sign of the times?

Check out the sites of well-known groups such as the British Dyslexia Association and the National Literacy Trust - you will not find any links to the reputable systematic synthetic phonics programmes/sites.

Speaks volumes for how much people in charge think about phonics and the people whose work is arguably leading the field.

[debbie]

Radio 4 interview with Professor Julian (Joe) Elliott:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03w16p9

Available to hear in the last week of Feb 2014 - from 34 minutes into the programme (thanks to Susan Godsland for flagging this up).

[debbie]

Here is my worry, weak or lip-service phonics will not be sufficient for a significant group of children in many classrooms.

Once teachers have provided phonics, however, and some children do not keep up or have more apparent struggles than others, it's all too easy to then attribute those struggles to 'within child' difficulties - that is, are they 'dyslexic' for example.

Plus, everyone can claim that they 'have been taught phonics' thus further focusing on the child as an individual RATHER THAN on the level of teaching and practice.

This isn't a simple issue - phonics is becoming a bit of a myth about a '20 minutes a day' diet - without a close study of what that 'diet' REALLY looks like.

For a start, how can 20 minutes a day of 'whatever' fulfil the needs of the children as individuals - and how can 20 minutes a day in large classes possibly provide both the teaching input and the level of PRACTICE that children need? Some children need much more than others - and some need plenty of 'extension' of course.

So- these are particularly dangerous times for any learners who do not keep up with whatever diet of phonics has been provided.

And if not much is PRACTISED in the 20 minutes (that is, insufficient PRACTICE for each individual), then day after day of 'not much' amounts to 'not much' despite its daily provision - and is not going to do the trick.

[debbie]

See below for information re Professor Elliott's forthcoming book and other information. I shall certainly be investing in the book!

The Dyslexia Debate Flyer:

https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/colling ... eflyer.pdf

The Dyslexia Debate Brief:

https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/colling ... hdraft.pdf

Events - The Dyslexia Debate Book Launch:

https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/colling ... Design.pdf

The End of Dyslexia in Higher Education

https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/colling ... slexia.pdf

[debbie]

What concerns me enormously, in England, is the apparent disconnect between people working specifically in the field of 'intervention' in the literacy domain and the leading systematic synthetic phonics and linguistic phonics programmes in 'mainstream' - but which are also totally fit-for-purpose for intervention as well.

For example, if you visit the British Dyslexia Association website, there is no mention at all of any of the leading programmes that passed the stringent examination to be part of the government's match funded phonics initiative from 2011 to 2013.

How can this be - other than a rather worrying bias towards programmes and resources traditionally used by those in authority at the BDA?

In fact, there is very little by way of resources and information for 'Systematic Synthetic Phonics' to be seen via the website.

You would also think by now that establishments such as the BDA would know of, and would want to promote for the good of 'specialists' in intervention and for informing parents, my free Alphabetic Code Chart and other free resources focusing on the Simple View of Reading and Simple View of Writing.

There is a similar lack of interest in the reputable Systematic Synthetic Phonics programmes and also lack of information accessible by the general public to high quality phonics resources and to my free Alphabetic Code Charts on the National Literacy Trust website.

You would be right in thinking that there is a great deal of bias against phonics - and leading phonics work - going on still in England.

Re this issue about 'mainstream' and 'intervention' programmes and practices - it is the same alphabetic code and phonics skills that everyone needs to be taught/learn regardless of any 'special needs'. Thus, everyone needs to be able to fully evaluate and compare what programmes (that is, bodies of work) and guidance for practice consists of.

Then, of course teaching adults need to be able to assess and understand what it is that may be the stumbling block, or blocks, of learners who have greater struggles than others.

This is very much linked to Elliot's ideas that there is not much difference between the needs of weak readers of all descriptions -whether labelled 'dyslexic' or not. Equally, there is no difference between stronger or quicker learners in terms of them needing the same alphabetic code knowledge and practice at phonics skills - alongside developing language comprehension.

Thus, there should not be this great divide between 'intervention' and 'mainstream' programme content and guidance.

[debbie]

I suggest that this is a very useful document indeed (link below). It describes the key features - the three core skills and their sub-skills - that all learners need.

Then, in terms of learners with apparent special needs, the 'individualism' comes from being able to ascertain which of any of these features the learner is struggling with and what the teacher needs to provide by way of information and extra practice.

Further, my 'two-pronged systematic and incidental phonics teaching' approach is ideal for the individualism of learners - and for any learners to addess their wider reading and experience and the wider curriculum:

http://www.phonicsinternational.com/Deb ... andout.pdf

What this means, in effect, is that there is always the provision of a 'systematic' phonics programme but at the same time, the teacher can teach and provide information about any letter/s-sound correspondences of the alphabetic code as required to addess the needs of the learner or the context of the learner/s.

Of course this is much better addressed when a central Alphabetic Code Chart is used to support the teaching and learning.

http://www.phonicsinternational.com/Tri ... skills.pdf

[debbie]

The Simple View of Reading diagram and the Simple View of Writing diagram:


http://www.phonicsinternational.com/The ... _model.pdf

Reflecting on the Teaching and Learning Cycle - needed whether mainstream or intervention, regardless of age:

http://www.phonicsinternational.com/Ref ... 0Cycle.pdf

[debbie]

Audit of phonics provision- needed whether mainstream or intervention - although this mentions the two programmes I am associated with, the suggestions are, in my view, generic expectations:


http://www.phonicsinternational.com/Aud ... ewhite.pdf

[debbie]

I shall continue this thread over time - and look forward to reading Professor Elliott's book and developing this important topic further.

Remember that it was Sir Jim Rose who addressed this notion of 'individual learning styles' head on in his 2006 Final Report when he stated that regardless of the individualism of the learner, it is the same alphabetic code knowledge and phonics skills that all learners need.

So, that is the point that I am reiterating here.

Diagnosed as 'dyslexic' or simply 'weak or slow reader', regardless of whether 'mainstream' or 'intervention' provision - it is the SAME alphabetic code knowledge and phonics skills required.

Therefore, there just should not be this disconnect between intervention programmes and provision and mainstream programmes and provision.

We should all be able to evaluate and compare programmes' content and guidance to select the most content-rich and effective for teaching and learning - but I suggest there are too many closed and biased minds, steeped in 'what they've always known' to this day.

[debbie]

The Dyslexia Debate Returns


http://rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5930

This is a thread (above) from the UK Reading Reform Foundation message forum regarding the returning dyslexia debate.

Susan Godsland provides a very good description of three different viewpoints regarding dyslexia - really, really worth reading.

Further, Susan Godsland provides an exceptionally well-referenced site here:

www.dyslexics.org.uk

[debbie]

This was a comment I made recently regarding the disconnect between intervention provision and mainstream - plus some weaknesses I observe even in mainstream phonics provision:

My findings are that even when schools have supposedly adopted a reputable (that is, formerly match funded) SSP programme, they often still use some 'other' intervention programme not really of good content and calibre in keeping with the mainstream programme.

I am getting more consultancy requests nowadays and find that there are all these groups of slower-to-learn children (for whatever reason) who are whipped out of lessons for 'Word Shark' or 'Nessy' or 'Direct Phonics' or 'Reading Recovery' or 'Catch Up' and thus they are missing out on potentially better provision using the resources and practices of the mainstream programmes.

Also, the mainstream teachers are increasingly made to create multiple groups for their phonics and reading provision. This has been largely exacerbated by the 'homogenous group' rationale behind Read Write Inc [which is great for RWI because it has been purpose-designed around matched groupings - but there are other ways] - and also because of misinterpretation of the 'phases' in Letters and Sounds – interpreted as a means of differentiation rather than as an order, or steps, of introducing the letter/s-sound correspondences.

So, I do see very weak mainstream teaching – but all the intervention groups and differentiated groups are not helping at all unless it can be shown that the children's diet within those groups is actually as good or better than with the mainstream teacher.

What is worrying, is that it is often 'different' - so the weakest children are receiving conflicting, inconsistent messages and phonics routines for their special needs provision.

Another issue in phonics provision – both in mainstream and in intervention – is the lack of paper-based resources for children to have as their 'own' - engaging in their own learning and assessment, having cumulative code, words, sentences and texts which 'belongs' to them for code work, reading, spelling, writing, dictations, self-dictations, and which they can revisit and review as many times as necessary, that they need lots of 'little and often' and with their own paper-based resources, these can be included in the 'book bag routine' to inform, share and repeat with parents wherever possible. Paper-based resources can also be used as a means to reward and enthuse children, to track and monitor their progress, and to share teaching and learning to date with other adults.

Therefore, if I was reviewing programmes and practices, I would be asking 'What do the children have, own, can visually see, can feel a sense of learning, can show off at home, can repeat across all teaching personnel?' There are multiple reasons why we should be concerned as a profession that teachers have often turned away from paper-based practice and provision of 'content' for children.

On looking round schools, we should also be concerned by the very poor pencil holds of children nowadays – not only are they not a tripod grip, they have reached the point of contorted holds and children commonly writing 'above' their words and not below.

We should really be looking to move the 'core criteria' on to include 'handwriting' specifically because this is a considerable 'whole' in the official core criteria.

When it comes to special needs, teachers and assistants themselves often have very poor handwriting and poor practices – and they don't realise that special needs children can write very much better and quickly when given the right type of teaching and high expectation along with the professional knowledge and skill to improve the handwriting.

Activities which many special needs teachers believe in – such as writing in sand trays and alphabet arcs are very far removed from what the children actually need.

[debbie]

Here is a great post by Pamela Snow via her blog 'The Snow Report':

Dyslexia we need to talk. It's not me, it's you.

http://pamelasnow.blogspot.co.uk/2014/0 ... l?spref=tw

I was reminded of this experience recently, when I heard about a forthcoming text, by Professors Julian (Joe) Elliot of Durham University and Elena Grigorenko, of Yale University, Connecticut “The Dyslexia Debate”. I have pre-ordered a copy and am looking forward to understanding their arguments against the use of the term dyslexia, particularly given that Professor Elliot is in the UK, where the term has had a much stronger uptake than here in Australia. You can listen to some of Professor Elliot’s thoughts here.

So, if we were to find three 8 year-olds in a Grade 2 classroom whose reading skills are say, two years below expected levels, would we say they all have dyslexia? If so, on what basis? What would we need to exclude in order for diagnostic criteria to be met? Can you have dyslexia if you have not been exposed to appropriate instructional techniques in the first three years of school? If not, what should we call your reading problems? “Reading problems”? Can you have dyslexia if you also have a mild intellectual disability? Or does a diagnosis of ID “trump” a diagnosis of dyslexia and automatically account for the child’s reading problems?

Distancing reading problems from instructional techniques

Another major reason that I don’t like the term dyslexia is that it can unfortunately enable adults in the child’s world to abdicate responsibility for the child’s reading skills (or lack there-of). If appropriate instructional techniques (i.e. those based on synthetic phonics approaches employing direct instruction) are not employed in the early years and a child reaches Grade 3 not having achieved expected benchmarks, is that child now functionally “dyslexic”? The great risk here of course is that schools can give up on such children, as the child, rather than the instructional environment, is seen as the problem.

In medicine, we refer to illnesses or other adverse outcomes that result from medical mishaps as iatrogenic – from the Greek “iatro” – physician and “genic” – stemming from. We should be careful, then, that we are not creating reading problems (dyslexia or not) that might best be referred to as “edugenic”.

So, dyslexia – who are you really?

[debbie]

Advance praise for the book 'The Dyslexia Debate' launched March 2014:


https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/educati ... eflyer.pdf

Julian G. Elliott, Durham University
Elena L. Grigorenko, Yale University


The Dyslexia Debate examines how we use the term “dyslexia” and questions its efficacy as a diagnosis. While many believe that a diagnosis of dyslexia will shed light on a reader's struggles and help identify the best form of intervention, Julian G. Elliott and Elena L. Grigorenko show that it adds little value. In fact, our problematic interpretation of the term could prove to be a major disservice to many children with difficulties learning to read. This book outlines in detail the diverse ways in which reading problems have been conceptualized and operationalized. Elliott and Grigorenko consider the latest research in cognitive science, genetics, and neuroscience, and the limitations of these fields in terms of professional action. They then provide a more helpful, scientifically rigorous way to describe the various types of reading difficulties and discuss empirically supported forms of intervention.

[debbie]

Dorothy Bishop kindly collates all the Twitter fever!


http://storify.com/deevybee/dyslexia-a- ... ource=t.co

[debbie]

Article in Times Higher Education about increased identification of higher education students as dyslexic and whether this is justified:


Dyslexic label being applied too widely, expert argues

6 MARCH 2014 | BY JACK GROVE

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/n ... 02.article

“Dyslexia has gone beyond its original meaning of [a person] having a complex decoding problem,” he added.

Students who read perfectly well are being labelled as dyslexic, and IQ tests and colour perception are wrongly taken into account when diagnosing the condition, he added. Students, parents, universities and educational psychologists are complicit in the misdiagnosis of dyslexia because each party has an interest in a positive diagnosis given the extra disability funds available, Professor Elliott said.

Educational psychologists who frequently diagnose dyslexia, which can lead to students receiving a free laptop, printer and study support, are also more likely to be re-employed by universities, he added.

“People who are the guardians of the system are those with an interest in expanding the system,” he said.