From the UK: the Rose Report on Dyslexia just released

Sir Jim Rose’s report on Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties was released on 22 June. It has been well received by teachers and by key dyslexia organisations in the UK, and Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, has accepted all the recommendations of the report, with £20 million committed to funding specialist teaching and support for schools and parents. Under this funding program, 4000 teachers will be funded to train in specialist dyslexia teaching over the next two years.
The review accepted the view that dyslexia is identifiable as a developmental difficulty of language learning and cognition, that is, that it exists as an identifiable condition, but at the same time described it as best thought of as a continuum, with no clear cut-off points.
The working definition of dyslexia adopted by the review was as follows:
• Dyslexia is a learning difficulty that primarily affects the skills involved in accurate and fluent word reading and spelling.
• Characteristic features of dyslexia are difficulties in phonological awareness, verbal memory and verbal processing speed.
• Dyslexia occurs across the range of intellectual abilities.
• It is best thought of as a continuum, not a distinct category, and there are no clear cut-off points.
• Co-occurring difficulties may be seen in aspects of language, motor coordination, mental calculation, concentration and personal organisation, but these are not, by themselves, markers of dyslexia.
• A good indication of the severity and persistence of dyslexic difficulties can be gained by examining how the individual responds or has responded to well founded intervention.
Prevalence of dyslexia was estimated at between 4 and 8 per cent of children, based on a recent report by Snowling. The review recognises that early identification of children with dyslexia is important, but at the same time it notes that blanket screening is questionable due to the lack of reliable screening tests. Instead, it recommends that the best approach is to monitor children’s progress and assess their responses to pre and early reading activities, with the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile providing an important source of information to Year 1 teachers. This approach is consistent with the Response to Intervention model.
Effective intervention is seen as based on matching provision to meet children’s individual needs, with a strong emphasis on phonological skills within a highly structured systematic approach presented on a regular and continuing basis, allowing time for reinforcement and consolidation of learning. However, the review recognises that some children with dyslexia will respond very slowly even to the most effective teaching approaches.
The review does not support the proposed Children’s Plan pilot scheme in which children with dyslexia were to receive Reading Recovery support from specialist teachers on a one-to-one basis, on the grounds that it would not be possible to identify with any certainty those
children in Years 1 and 2 whose reading difficulties were due to dyslexia from those children whose reading difficulties were not due to dyslexia. It therefore recommends that this pilot scheme should not go ahead.
Particular emphasis is placed in the report on the need for specialist training of teachers, the development of clear guidance for parents and schools on the use and availability of literacy help, and the role of schools to evaluate their programs and to ensure that they have the expertise to deliver the extra help required.
This is a landmark report in recognising the need for a fundamental change in the approach to providing for students with dyslexia and reading difficulties in the school system, and could serve as a model to how the needs of students with reading difficulties might be addressed in Australia.
The Rose report on Dyslexia is available at http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/00659-2009DOMEN.pdf.

From the LDA Bulletin, Volume 41, No 2, June 2009