Government adviser Sir Jim Rose's report on dyslexia has been widely reported today. BBC News said, "More teachers will be trained to identify and support children in England with dyslexia, as a report says greater expertise is needed in schools. Sir Jim Rose, who recently reviewed the English primary school curriculum, said parents needed guidance on the help available. The government says 4,000 teachers will be trained, and online courses provided to help them support dyslexic pupils.Charity Dyslexia Action called it a "landmark report" and a "great step forward" to have a definition of dyslexia which those affected could recognise and accept.
In his report, Sir Jim defines dyslexia as a "learning difficulty which primarily affects skills involved in accurate and fluent word-reading and spelling". The report will say dyslexia should not be treated as a distinct category of people, but as a continuum, like other disorders. He is also expected to reiterate that good quality teaching in children's early years is vital."
The link to the full BBC report is at the bottom of this post but what strikes me is that it has taken this long for a report to be done. Dyslexia is not new and the fact that it is only now being 'officially' recognised is a scandal. Whole generations of people have had their lives blighted because they have had unrecognised and untreated dyslexia. Instead, they have been branded 'thick' and have not been able to develop the life chances they should have.
I sincerely hope that this report's recommendations will be acted upon so that teachers can learn not only how to identify children with forms of dyslexia but know how to do something about it. As I have said before, if the government wants 'inclusion' then mainstream teachers cannot just teach the mainstream. If teachers don't have the access to the funding or training to make their teaching truly inclusive, then once a child is recognised as having a problem, they should be given access to teachers that can help them.
Ten million pounds doesn't actually seem that much to provide all the help that is required, but it is a start and should be recognised as such.
I am no expert, however, I am of the opinion that some children with 'continuum' difficulties such as dyslexia and ASD need a different teaching style altogether that can only be delivered in a specialist environment. I have helped various parents with their statementing battles and have seen quite a few Educational Psychology reports. What seems to be a theme is that the working memory and non-verbal skills of these children is almost always poor, sometimes dramatically so, compared to their basic level of intelligence. This means they have difficulty remembering instructions and sequences, problems with attention and with organisation. These are in addition (though connected) to the problems they have with making sense of reading or writing or both.
This group of issues will be difficult for a teacher with thirty other pupils adequately to address, however much training they have. They are, after all, only one person and are not superhuman, unless there are government plans to provide funding for that too. Isn't it better that these children learn together and are taught in the way they learn best? It is great that teachers will be trained to spot Dyslexia - they should also be trained to spot and act when they believe a child is on the autistic spectrum as well. But my concerns are that we are simply asking too much of teachers when they have so many children of all varieties to deal with.
The answer could be in smaller class sizes so each child can get individualised learning, or grouping children according to learning styles. In our school, dyslexic, dyspraxic, dyscalculic and Aspergic children learn alongside each other in small groups because their learning styles are more similar and the class sizes are small enough that where differences exist, they can be catered for. Eight children may need things explained eight different ways, but that's feasible in such a small class. I question whether that's possible in a class of thirty.
It should be possible in a junior school of children with three-class intake per year to be sensitively placed so that the teacher has a fighting chance of helping everyone. When my younger son was in mainstream, he was made to go into the remedial English group because he had problems writing, even though his reading was top of the whole year. He was angry, frustrated and sometimes had to be dragged to the lesson because he knew he was in the wrong group. Now in his specialist school, he is supported in his areas of difficulties while still doing work that is at the correct level for his intelligence. We had to move him into the independent sector to get this but this kind of teaching should be available to every child whether or not they have the parents who are willing and able to fight battles to get them what they need.
This report looks like a good marker for future practice if the recommendations are acted upon. We await other reports that are ongoing such as the Lamb Inquiry and the other autism bills that are going through parliament to see whether a real difference can be made and the future of another generation of children is not lost to the vagaries of government policy.
BBC report here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8109554.stm
She is also an experienced broadcast and print journalist & author. Tania also runs a PR, web & social media consultancy, SocialOro Media. She is a Rare Disease & chronic pain patient advocate with Ehlers Danlos syndrome.
Latest posts by Tania Tirraoro (see all)
- Exemplary Practice: Creating a positive future of meaningful work for young people with SEND - October 18, 2019
- Ofsted finds home education is most often not a choice – and off-rolling is a key culprit - October 15, 2019
- The DfE wants to stop LAs filling SEND funding gaps - October 14, 2019