My comment in SEN Magazine in response to 'Dyslexia Matters'

Whether or not you are using the Phonics International Programme, feel free to visit this informal 'Chat' forum!
Here you will find all sorts of interesting articles, links to research and developments - and various interesting topics! Do join in!
Post Reply
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2598
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

My comment in SEN Magazine in response to 'Dyslexia Matters'

Post by debbie »

It is 'Dyslexia Week' on 3rd to 9th November, 2014.

An article in SEN Magazine reminds readers about 'Dyslexia Week' and the implications for dyslexic people. I leave a 'readers' comment' beneath:

https://www.senmagazine.co.uk/articles/ ... ia-matters

I write:
Fortunately, all the Government promotion of rigorous Systematic Synthetic Phonics will contribute a great deal to getting children with dyslexic tendencies off to a good start.

Although the Year One phonics screening check is unpopular with some people, nevertheless it has informed teachers about the effectiveness of their phonics provision compared to like-settings and the national average results.

Unfortunately, many schools do not understand the difference between phonics provision which is truly effective and fit-for-purpose and phonics provision which is bordering on 'extraneous' - a notion that Sir Jim Rose introduced in his important Final Report on the teaching of early reading in 2006.

The idea that children with dyslexic tendencies require something more 'kinaesthetic', for example, can mean in reality that they receive more 'extraneous' phonics provision which many teachers misunderstand.
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2598
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

The reason that I leave this comment is because of my concern about phonics provision in England despite all the promotion of Systematic Synthetic Phonics in recent years.

The vast majority of schools in England state that they 'do 'Letters and Sounds' as their core programme but 'Letters and Sounds' is resourceless and incomplete - lacking in cumulative content and rigour and it provides no teaching and learning resources.

Thus, teachers have to translate 'Letters and Sounds' and turn it into a full programme by acquiring sufficient resources for daily provision for large numbers of children for several years.

Some schools may have done this well - or have invested in a high-quality ready-made SSP programme - and yet the teachers may still say they 'do' 'Letters and Sounds' as their core programme.

Other schools follow 'Letters and Sounds' order of the 'Phases' and some content - and may have made or invested in all sorts of bits and pieces to 'deliver' 'Letters and Sounds'.

Some schools may do this well - but in others the provision for children may be verging on 'extraneous' (pink and fluffy) phonics content and practice (in comparison to other schools).

This type of practice may well let down children with dyslexic tendencies but the success of other children may give the feel-good factor of teachers thinking that they are providing phonics content and knowledge in a child-friendly fit-for-purpose way when the reality is that they are not.

Of course it is the children with propensity to muddlement who will, arguably, not fare as well in this type of school even though it might present as a 'dyslexia-friendly' type school.

So, the picture is not quite so clear-cut as people might like to believe.

Further, we know from the NFER review of teachers in England's schools that many teachers still appear to promote and teach the 'multi-cueing reading strategies' which will invariably diminish the effectiveness of explicit phonics teaching - and it may well be the children with dyslexic tendencies who will fare the worst under such a mixed methods approach. :?
Last edited by debbie on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2598
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

This link leads to an article I wrote for SEN Magazine illustrating that teachers in England are not all providing Systematic Synthetic Phonics as per the official guidance in England (guidance which is informed by the research and leading-edge practice):

http://phonicsinternational.com/forum/v ... .php?t=655
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2598
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

Further - is there a 'disconnect' between the various dyslexia organisations and the rigour and rich content of the leading commercial SSP programmes?

In other words, is there often a 'disconnect' between mainstream programmes and practice and special needs programmes and practice?

I suggest so.

And yet Sir Jim Rose in his independent review on teaching beginners to read highly recommended that there should be no such disconnect between mainstream phonics practice and special needs intervention.

Too often I visit schools and see that disconnect first-hand.
Debbie Hepplewhite
Post Reply