Insights from teacher research on dyslexia remediation
Professor Diane Montgomery
Introduction
On reading the last edition of the PATOSS Bulletin I felt empathy
for the view of Rachel Simpson on how complex the assessment of dyslexia
had become. It applies across the field. Yet we do know what works in
remedial terms even if the theory behind it has often been wrong. We
need to share effective practice more and use it to evaluate the theory
and research.
In 1991, Pumfrey and Reason in an NFER survey reviewed national remedial
provision and concluded that:
‘If a pedagogic panacea to children’s difficulties in reading,
spelling and writing existed, it would
probably have been identified by now. It has not.’ (p. 6)
I did not agree with them then and I do not agree with them now. The four
specialist centres I had visited in South East London and Surrey all had
data that demonstrated they were effective although it was not published.
An inspection by HMI (1989) had even identified them as Centres of Excellence.
It was notable that these centres were using a small range of programmes
that were derived from the Orton - Gillingham – Stillman (OGS) system
(Gillingham and Stillman, 1956) introduced into the UK in 1963 by Sally
Childs in her training courses. Each centre - Hornsby’s, Pollack’s,
Cowdery’s and Augur’s (formerly Hickey’s at Staines)
appeared to have developed its own variant within the same general structure.
What was evident was a conflict between methods advocated for the acquisition
and development of literacy in ‘normal’ pupils and those suitable
for remedial work with dyslexics. Teaching of reading experts were even
aghast at the methods employed when observing Hickey at work with her
dyslexics. Their opposition meant that she was unable to find a place
to teach in their institution and had to set up privately what eventually
became the Staines Dyslexia Institute.
This type of opposition continued when the BDA developed a proposal for
a Certificate course for teaching dyslexics that embraced Hickey’s
teaching system. The Council for National Academic Awards’ team
of evaluators refused to validate the curriculum unless the methods promoted
were eclectic reflecting good reading teaching practice. The curriculum
was revised accordingly but in my view set much dyslexia training on the
wrong course. Even the publication of the data of Hornsby and Farrar (1990)
and Thomson (1990) see table 1 below, by Pumfrey and Elliott (1990) did
not cause pause for thought and many specialist centres were closed.
Funding and research interest went into reading almost entirely for the
next 15 years even though Cataldo and Ellis (1990) had demonstrated the
importance of spelling in the development of reading. Handwriting was
largely ignored despite its importance in supporting spelling and composition.
The National Literacy Strategy (1998) and the research leading up to it
continually asserted the primacy of reading teaching over other literacy
skills. But was this reasonable especially in remedial provision?
What needs to be questioned is whether a system that has already failed
dyslexics is still suitable for remediation and whether reading is the
core difficulty in any case (Montgomery, 2007).
Method
Data from Cowdery’s Centre case records were collected before it
closed and were analysed to determine how much progress pupils had made
in reading and spelling per year after entry into their Teaching Reading
Through Spelling (TRTS) programme (Cowdery et al 1994). This was based
upon Hickey’s (1977) anglicised version of OGS and the tutors there
had all attended Hickey’s initial training course and Prince–Bruce
had already written a spelling programme for the Local Authority.
The criteria they operated by were as follows: -
•
pupils would be referred to the Centre waiting list only after
a full psychologist’s report
•
entry to the Centre would follow after interview by one of the
tutors with pupil and parent(s), an assessment and report
•
entrants must have an IQ not lower than 90
•
a 20 per cent decrement between ability and literacy skills with
literacy being the poorer
•
pupils would be taught in matched pairs (matched for skills levels)
•
lessons were on a withdrawal basis at the Centre
•
lessons would last 50 minutes (within the one hour envelope allowed)
•
lessons should be twice per week
•
after two years the remedial provision would be terminated
•
the method was the 4 tutors’ agreed version of TRTS
•
a range of reading schemes were available for use to fit in with
the school provision
•
an optional period of 6 months top-up should be available in later
secondary school to aid spelling
The research criterion for successful provision (Montgomery 1997a) was
that the dyslexics should make at least two years progress in reading
and spelling in each chronological age year otherwise they could never
catch up. The records of all the pupils that were complete from the 4
tutors over the preceding two years were then analysed and the rate of
progress calculated.
Other data were added from teacher researchers’ dissertations following
the MA SpLD and MA SEN distance learning programmes at Middlesex after
these were set up in 1993 and can be seen in Tables 1 and 2 in the results
section below. These later researchers could not always maintain all the
criteria of the specialist centre as the teachers were school based. For
example, tuition was often individual and sessions rarely 50 minutes long
because of timetabling constraints. Nevertheless the variations themselves
have provided some valuable insights.
|