Implications of Research cited inThe Rose Report
In
June 2009 a report was published by Sir Jim Rose entitled, “Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and
Literacy Difficulties”.
The Rose report can be read here:
http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/00659-2009DOM-EN.pdf
Recommendations came from it including training more
specialist dyslexia teachers and using synthetic phonics as the medium for
teaching reading. The emphasis on synthetic phonics comes after looking at
research cited in the report. However, when you look at the bibliography and
read the research cited the picture becomes a little different.
Some of the research is from America and 2 studies are from
the UK. When you read the research it is clear that in all cases they were
comparing different phonic methods of teaching reading. In none of the studies
was any of the children screened for dyslexia.
This study was carried out in North Yorkshire.
Pages 7 and 8of the PDF is particularly revealing:
The other interesting UK study, also cited in
the Rose Report as supporting his recommendations, was carried out in
Clackmannanshire:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383
Again, no
pre-screening for dyslexia, again a comparison of different phonic methods;
this time no mention of dyslexia at all. In the conclusions and graphs on the
last page the cohort is described as doing exceptionally well when presented
with synthetic phonics; however…5.6% of the sample cohort are more than 2 years
behind there age for word recognition and a significant 14% are more than 2
years behind for comprehension.
The work of Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Rose et al (1999), a
US study, also cited in the Rose Report, compares the usefulness of 3 different
phonologically based methods – it does not mention dyslexia.
The North Yorks study was of an "at risk" group
who had NOT been identified
as dyslexic -- so they did not know which, if any, students in their study were dyslexic
or not. The 25% non-responders was the group with the "more severe
phonological impairments" --- and a "phonological impairment"
would be a marker for or key symptom of dyslexia.
So another way of looking at that study is to conclude that
the phonologically based tutoring may help 75% of "at risk" students,
but it is unknown whether it will help dyslexic students at all. Given that
phonological impairment is itself an indication of dyslexia, it is very
possible that the "non-responders" represent the bulk of the truly
"dyslexic" students –so, ideally, a further study would be needed.
One possible interpretation of the North Yorkshire study is
specifically that phonetic tutoring is NOT effective for dyslexic students,
although it appears effective for non-dyslexic, "at risk" students.
The Rose report calls for the education system to say’ “No”
to failure’ but makes no recommendations about what to do to support these
non-responders.
Davis methods work from the premise that phonological
methods will not help dyslexics to learn to read but, rather, are likely to
make reading ever more difficult, though, once a dyslexic is reading, phonics
may have a useful place.
Davis Learning Strategies and Davis Correction Methods can
offer a constructive alternative for those non-responders and does not hinder
the non-dyslexic learner as they learn to read.