There is no such thing as dyslexia.

[VioletBaudelaire]

www.theherald.co.uk/display.var.1430434.0.0.php?utag=40859
I've had my say!

singersgirl - you have to be able to retain the info in the short term memory to be able to transfer it to the longer term memory, I'm afraid!

"Ok, fair enough, but...what if the child/adult has short term memory problems and many of the phonetic sounds just aren't remembered?"

If someone has a weak memory what hope is there of learning to read by look say. English has millions of words.

Its easier to learn 44 letter sounds (With prehaps at worse over a 100 variants and spelling rules, than learn every word in the English language individually.

I believe that 40% of words just use the simple code. If someone can decode 40% of words in the English langage with just the 44 sounds in Jolly phonics its a massive start. Later on children can learn alternative ways of representing words which will help with the rest of the English language.

shinynewshoes, Carmen McGuinness (DIL and former student of Diane McGuinness) wrote the Phonographix programme. There is a lot of 'history' involved here that I don't want to get into. All I will say is that Phonographix is a VERY pale version of the Sound Reading System

There is no evidence that having a poor memory causes 'dyslexia':'In a highly regarded study conducted by Joseph Torgesen, a psychologist at the University of Florida, out of 60 children with severe reading difficulties, only eight had poor short-term memories, while almost as many ? seven ? had very good short-term memories' (Mills)

Can I just say that I think that synthetic phonics methodology has lots to offer, I'm not knocking it at all, I still just really struggle with the idea that there is a 'magic' system that will fix any individual's reading problems. - Don't get me wrong, I wish that it was as simple as that!
Thanks for clarifying (discreetly!) the relationship between the 2 programmes, Maverick - I'm dimly aware of some copyright issues coming up at some point, I think.

Hmm, a study of 60 pupils isn't really huge, is it? If there wasn't any evidence for a connection between poor (auditory) memory skills and dyslexia, then why is it still included in screening tests? [naive emoticon???]

There are no copyright issues.

Teaching young children to read is EASY if you follow a good synthetic phonic programme closely, it's sorting out the problems caused by whole-language instruction that is difficult.

As Prof Elliott said (see OP), there are no screening tests which can identify 'dyslexia' - there is absolutely no way to separate out 'dyslexics' as a special group from 'ordinary' poor readers.

I was referring to the copyright issues that prevented an LEA in my knowledge being able to use one of the pprogrammes, actually.

So, would you really make no distinction between how you would teach 2 poor readers aged 10, one with an IQ of 60 and one with an IQ of 130, then? - And I'm not trying to get into an IQ debate, just trying to make a point briefly so please take the de-bunking of IQ as read!

'So, would you really make no distinction between how you would teach 2 poor readers aged 10, one with an IQ of 60 and one with an IQ of 130, then?'

Correct. I would make no distinction. As Prof. M.Snowling said in The Dyslexia Myth C4 programme, ' It's really very surprising, if not unbelievable, that children of high IQ don't respond any faster to intervention than children of low IQ. You would expect, on average,that the higher-IQ group would do better, but the fact of the matter is that they don't, and as long as you target the core problem, both groups move and improve at the same rate.'

I reiterate, 'there are no copyright issues', though 'some people' may imply that there are.

Well, sorry, but I'm not sure that if I were a 10 yr old with an IQ of 130 and huuuuuuge reading problems I would want you to be my tutor!
Not meaning to be rude at all, but I just feel that there are issues that simply are not addressed by your argument. I was not in any way suggesting that the IQ 130 example should be expected to make more rapid progress, but I really do feel that to say you would treat them in exactly the same way is an oversimplification. OK, there is no such thing as a 'dyslexic type reading problem,' - a reading problem is just that - but dyslexia can bring so many other issues with it too.

The difference between the child with an IQ of 60 and an IQ 130 is that the child with the low IQ has problems in every area of life where as the the child with an IQ of 130 is strong in many areas.

However when it comes to reading both children are struggling. I imagine that if maverick was going to teach these two children the first thing she would do is assess their knowledge of letter sounds and diagraphs, ablity to blend words and ablity to segment. Lets assume that both children know no phonics whatsoever.

The bright child has a problem with their brain that makes it hard for them to learn phonics. They might be good at other things like art, playing the violin, vector calculus, but for some unknown reason they find learning to read exceptionally difficult and slow.

If you just consider the tiny part of the the brain that is used for learning to read. It is equally defective in both children. The bright child has a major learning difficulty in a small area of their life.

An analogy that might explain what I mean. You might have two children with cerabral palsy and same level of physical development. They are both physically disabled because their cerabellum (part of the brain that controls movement) has been damaged in the same way. One child has an IQ of 130 and the other has an IQ of 60. A child physio decides to provide splints and a similar exercise programme for both children. Both children make similar levels of progress in developing their gross motor skills.

What you mean by 'other issues'? In my experience 'other issues' are a consequence of being a poor reader and of poor instruction, not a cause.

In my previous post I should have made it clearer that although I wouldn't differentiate between readers of different IQs (I have no idea what the IQs are of the the children I tutor as it's irrelevent to the programme. I test for code knowledge, ability to segment and blend and reading and spelling age) I would start children at different points in the programme depending on the results of the tests I do. There are also 2 'routes' through the programme - one is more 'kinaesthetic' in approach than the other - more suitable for young children or very damaged young people, but both routes have the same content

I actually didn't say poor memory causes dyslexia. How can i put this...it compounds it. I have tried teaching my dds (and dh) the sounds in the English language, but they barely remember the easy ones sometimes, depending on the length of the word they are in to some extent.
Having said that dd1 is reading Harry Potter, and dd2 is reading the Wizard of Oz, and dh reads Gamecentral on teletext twice a day religiously - but if you looked at their written work it's much further behind.

And the 'shape' of the words thing some teachers have tried does diddley squat too.

so Maverick, presumably you do not see any relevance in slow processing skills - auditory memory problems have already been discussed I think, and I suspect from your Room 101 that you feel that phonological problems are simply irrelevant - difficulties in achieving automaticity etc? You seem to be saying that 'dyslexia' = poor reading = poor teaching.
Do you feel then that 'dyslexia' cannot be identified until a pupil has had time to experience 'bad teaching'? (I'm paraphrasing, sorry - I'm tired).

'You seem to be saying that 'dyslexia' = poor reading = poor teaching.
Do you feel then that 'dyslexia' cannot be identified until a pupil has had time to experience 'bad teaching'?'

Yep, that's precisely put and what all the empirical evidence indicates.

With the following proviso:
For a multitude of reasons a child can have difficulties learning to read even though the school is using a genuine synthetic programme first, fast and exclusively. It is absolutely essential that the school implements some one-to-one tutoring immediately it is noticed that the child is failing to keep up with his/her classroom companions and that the tutor uses MORE of the SAME programme, NOT something DIFFERENT; prevention rather than intervention.

Ruth Miskin, creator of the Read Write Inc. programme, explains, 'I think there will always be a small group of children who will need one-to-one tutoring - even with the best synthetic programmes, best training and best implementation; there are some children who have particular needs that cannot be met in a group - and not just SEN children.

We tutored some children with SEN at my old school forever until they could read well. We also tutored children with behaviour problems, long term absentees, new arrivals just to mention a few. These children were always given more of the same and not something different. No amount of group teaching helps a child once they fall behind their peers - though you can sometimes teach in pairs if they are at the same level.

If we want to be truly inclusive schools must plan for these children as a matter of course and not just hope for the best. Synthetic phonics is not a simple panacea - it takes determination to get every child reading. As soon as a child fails to learn the first letter on the first day - quick tutoring should take place.

Good night, shinynewshoes, I've enjoyed our conversation.

Well. There you go then SNS

Well!
Academics across the nation will be shocked to learn that their work is no longer required now that you have it all sewn up so neatly, Maverick.

I shall look forward to 'dyslexia' and all other reading problems being eliminated within the next couple of years.....

Goodnight!

Maverick, i would be very interested to know your opinions on what I should say to my school.
They teach Ruth Miskin, have small group intervention for any children that are falling behind, then in year four it all stops! no more Ruth Miskin, no small group work, all children have to be taught in a whole class situation.
So the ones who still struggle get no extra help at all just slightly easier work and five spellings instead of twelve.
Bonkers if you as me, whats the point of putting in all that early work if you then just give up on them.

SNS - we all wish for the elimintation of these dysteachia problems but sadly it will not be overnight as there are always a number of people who are resistant to change so it will take a bit longer yet

In the meantime i think i'll do what i've always done then - help dds to enjoy reading and books, encourage their talents, point out to them that poor spelling does not mean you are stupid, and point same out to stupid teachers who won't get them assessed!

'I shall look forward to 'dyslexia' and all other reading problems being eliminated within the next couple of years.....'

eucalyptus is right -it's going to take a very long time Despite the historic Rose Report and its acceptance in full by the government, there is an enormous amount of subversion, digging-in of heels and outright attacking of synthetic phonics going on still. The ITTs, to my knowledge, still haven?t come round to it.

Get hold of a copy of the UKLA?s ?Literacy? magazine (April 2007) and read the gruesome article by Dominic Wyse and Morag Styles on ?Synthetic Phonics and the Teaching of Reading: the debate surrounding England?s Rose Report.?, to see what a hill there is still to climb. It?s outrageous what people will do/say to preserve their egos and reputations, never mind the children

isgrassgreener, do you know if your child?s school is implementing the RM programme faithfully, or is it continuing to mix it with memorising whole-words and using whole-language reading books? What sort of intervention programme is it using?

SIW, there is a synthetic phonic programme on the web that you could try using with your child. Have a look at: Stairway to Reading: free, online, remedial tutoring programme (Canadian) www.societyforqualityeducation.org/stairway.html A one-on-one remedial reading program for students of any age who have already received some reading instruction but who are struggling with reading. Caution UK users: there are some N. American accent/sound differences.
Or, wait until September when Debbie Hepplewhite?s, sure to be excellent, programme is due to appear: www.syntheticphonics.com/programme.html

I appreciate the thought Maverick, but they have had remedial small group teaching. They have difficulty remembering the sounds to be able to sound out longer words, or words they've never read before. It's more spelling that affects their school work.
My main worry is not that of teaching them literacy, but of their school recognising that they are actually capable of doing the harder work in class (eg science, history, creative writing) so long as the person who reads it doesn'tmind how it's spelled! And it doesn't make things easier when dd hands work in, and the teacher will not explain that she has misread the question and help her...oh No! She gets told to go back and do it again . Three times . And it takes so long she gets no break time [steam coming out of ears emoticon]. Sorry. Ranting again!

SIW, sorry to hear of the negative experiences, that's very depressing. Certainly not a 'dyslexia friendly school'!

I'm afraid that I'm clearly too horribly cynical for MN, as my comments looking forward to the end of dyslexia were so firmly tongue in cheek that my tonsils tickled.
As I've said (lots of times now!) I'm not knocking synthetic phonics, but I still fail to see how it can address the whole host of other issues (processing differences, memory, organisation, problems with synthesisng information etc) relating to dyslexia - I see it as sooooo much more than 'just' a reading problem caused by poor teaching. I'm aware that plenty won't agree with me, but that's fine! - Vive la difference.....

SomethingIncrediblyWitty Oh how I know what you mean. That was my experience at
school.

Depending on the school or teacher I was either very very bright or a bit dumb. It's whether they saw through my prob to what was I was actually saying. If that was the case then I was bright 8-) Other than that I was lazy.

Wasn't until I was 17 and out of secondary school that a teacher stopped with the red crosses and bothered to look at where I was going wrong. Before that I'd been bounced for years in maths and English between top and lower streams. Too bright or too lazy?

ShinyNewShoes yes, know where you're coming from.

Personally I don't have a prob with the label or how things are broken down and defined but there are certain things going on with many of my family members but not others. It doesn't reflect ability or laziness but very real difficulties. I come from large family and with a few it's not the same. They had the same parents and the same teachers. Later life had shown none to be brighter or less so.