In the UK the tendency over decades has been for teachers, researchers and governments to focus upon reading more than spelling and writing as the main deficit in dyslexia so that the original principles and practices of OGS have been diluted. This is evidenced when the teachers in the researches cited above thought it was reasonable to leave out the spelling activities and dictations if curriculum time was restricted. It had deleterious effects on both reading and spelling progress. It was likely that they needed a great deal more experience in using the programmes as specified before they would have the expertise to alter or develop them. The four teachers at the TRTS specialist remedial centre for example did have this expertise and had developed Hickey’s programme further rather than modified and curtailed it.

The tabled data also shows that non APSL multisensory phonic-based programmes by themselves are not effective in remediating dyslexia. Phonics has to embody word building, syllable structure morphemics and linguistics. Synthetic phonics of a specific type found in OGS is also needed linked to cursive writing and is not necessarily found in commercial and government materials that are widely used.

Delaying phonics work until a sight vocabulary was attained or front loading with phonological awareness training were also both found to delay dyslexics’ progress. The phonological skills improved for example but did not transfer to literacy skills (Simonson, 2007), She also demonstrated that joined up writing as a remedial hand was more effective than non-joining. Wraith’s data indicated that PAT developed by Wilson (1993) which cannot begin until the pupil already has a reading and spelling age of at least 7 years, was better than eclectic methods but still failed to deliver two years progress per year.

It was also found to be essential that the multisensory component included articulatory phonics as in TRTS and the Edith Norrie Letter Case, plus cursive writing to consolidate the sound-symbol correspondence (Montgomery, 2007, 2011).

The information that working in matched pairs is better for the pupils and improves their progress is important. Data from classroom observations by the teachers (Montgomery, 2011) suggested that the improved progress was not the result of competition between the pair but more likely to be due to less talk from the teacher to each individual. In pairs teaching the teacher has to share the focus of attention and tuition between them. This affords more cognitive and meta-cognitive processing time to the pupils and helps them consolidate learning and so remember better. The specialist centre teachers reported that teaching the TRTS programme in groups of 3 or more had proved less effective. They were unable to give the detailed attention to the learning process of each individual when there were more than two in the sessions.

Another difference identified was between Alpha to Omega and TRTS/Hickey in that if all the vowels were introduced in quick succession then those with no alphabetic skills quickly became confused. Their introduction needed to be carefully phased until secure (Montgomery, 1997a).

When a programme is successful, the learners feel it and are empowered. They work harder. A weight is lifted from them and they lose their frustration and their general behaviour improves as they spend more time on task. The qualitative evaluations of the remedial tuition by both the pupils and their teachers in their dissertations and case reports supported this (Montgomery, 2011).

It can be concluded from this data that if a remedial programme does not show uplift in 6 months of at least one year’s progress in both reading and spelling skills then it should be abandoned and another used in its place. Once a pupil has achieved grade level with remedial input then they need time to consolidate what has been learned. Transfer to classroom learning must occur. For this to happen it is helpful if the classroom teacher also knows the programme and can reinforce what has been learned in the remedial sessions.

The difficulties experienced by dyslexics in transferring skills learnt in the remedial sessions to general work in the classroom has frequently been noted by teachers. To address this, strategic approaches to spelling have been developed (Montgomery, 2007) and it helps to distinguish between level 1 and level 2 dyslexics,

Level 1 dyslexics (Montgomery, 2003) are those who lack a sufficient grasp of the basic phonics structure of the language even though they may have some whole word knowledge. These were the subjects in the researches in Tables 1 and 2.

Level 2 dyslexics are those that have achieved a reasonable grasp of phonics and may read adequately but whose spelling and writing remains poor in relation to their age and ability. There are many more of these (dysorthographics) than severe dyslexics in classrooms unidentified and unsupported (Montgomery, 2008). For this group CPSS (Cognitive Process Strategies for Spelling) or Strategy Programmes are proving highly effective and giving equally as good uplift as APSL with Level One. The CPSS input after the first few individual tutorials can be provided in class or in much shorter 10-15 minute withdrawal sessions.

a. CPSS is still ‘research in progress’ and PATOSS members are invited to participate by contacting the author of this article:

b. Diagnosis of dyslexia in Reception through ‘marks on paper’ is a repeat project starting October 2012, for information contact the author:

c. Data that confirms or disconfirms the above findings will be most welcome to add to our insights.

dmont507@aol.com