New Reports of Interest
Teaching Children to Read
UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, POSTnote October 2009 Number 345
The UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has recently released a briefing paper on Teaching Children to Read.
This Briefing Paper provides a useful summary of the reading process,
including an outline of the simple view of reading, the underlying
basis of specific reading difficulties, and different methods of
reading instruction in the context of current and possible future
policy directions.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn345.pdfFrom 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 Ł20
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
Response to the Shape of the National Curriculum: English
The
following letter, signed by a group of reading researchers, specialist
remedial teachers and members of organisations representing the
interests of students who experience difficulties in literacy and
learning to read, was sent on 26 May 2009 to the Federal Education
Minister Julia Gillard and to Professor Barry McGaw, the Chairman of
the National Curriculum, in response to the recently released
Shape of the National Curriculum: English.
Signatories to the letter included Professor Max Coltheart, president
of Learning Difficulties Australia; Professor Kevin Wheldall, director
of the Macquarie University Special Education Centre and MULTILIT, and
ex-president of Learning Difficulties Australia; Angela Weeks,
president of AUSPELD; Mandy Naylor, executive officer, Dyslexia/SPELD
Foundation, WA, and Yvonne Meyer, parent representative on the
Committee of the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. This
letter attracted some media attention, as well as responses to the
media from Professor Barry McGaw (see links given at the end of this
article). In responding to the media reports, Professor McGaw assured
the education community that the Board’s position had not shifted from
its initial advice that students had to
be taught explicitly and
systematically the letter-sound relationships when learning to read,
and that this will be reflected in the syllabus and in the instructions
to the curriculum writers.
Having previously expressed her deep concern over Australian students’ poor performance
in basic literacy and numeracy skills, Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, the
Hon.
Julia Gillard MP, when announcing the National Curriculum, stated that
it would be a rigorous, world-class document underpinned by a renewed
focus on literacy and numeracy.
Ms Gillard’s National Curriculum
media release stated that: “... the new national curriculum is being
developed transparently and in consultation with government and
non-government education authorities, teachers, parents, students,
academics, professional organisations and
business groups.”
Unfortunately, the process of developing the
Shape of the Australian Curriculum: English
was not followed correctly and has resulted in a flawed guide for
writing the Australian English Curriculum for the Primary years,
particularly K-2 Literacy. This contradicts the publicly stated
intention of both Ms Gillard and the National Curriculum Board.
1. The National Curriculum Board’s own Initial Advice is not reflected in the
Shape paper.
2. Despite claiming that the
Shape
paper was prepared following extensive consultation with all
stakeholders, no recognised reading researcher was consulted, and
requests that recognised reading researchers should be consulted were
ignored.
3. No genuine consultation took place with K-2 primary
classroom teachers, classroom teachers using evidence-based proven
effective initial or remedial reading teaching strategies, or Special
Education teachers with proven success in helping struggling readers.
Despite Ms Gillard’s statement that there would be a “transparent”
process, the contents of the
Shape
paper were developed after private consultation with a very narrow
group of individuals who did not represent the range of views on how
best to teach initial reading.
4. Despite claiming rigorous and
world class status, the document does not reflect the findings and
recommendations of the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy
which were accepted by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG),
and does not reflect the findings of internationally accepted best
practice in curriculum content for K-2 English Curriculum.
5. Important recommendations and strong comments about critical wording in the
Shape document that were verbally expressed during the Forums have been disregarded.
6.
Despite the National Curriculum Board’s repeated assurances that the
Board welcomes and encourages all stakeholders, including the wider
community, to participate, the
Shape paper uses phrases that would confuse, mislead and alienate the ordinary person.
1. The National Curriculum Board’s own Initial Advice is not reflected in the Shape paper.The National English Curriculum: Initial Advice, Beginnings and Basics makes a very clear and
unambiguous
statement that: “The explicit and systematic teaching of sound-script
correspondences is important, and not just for students who are in
their first year or so of schooling, or for whom English is not a first
language.”
And continues with:
“The explicit teaching of
decoding, grammar, spelling and other aspects of the basic codes of
written English will be an important and routine aspect of the national
English curriculum. It should be planned, put into practice and
consolidated as part of a program in English education,
and it should be available to students throughout the school years."
However, the
Shape
document does not follow the Initial Advice in that reading is only
referred to in the general context of “listening, speaking, viewing,
reading, writing and creating activities”. There is only one sentence
in the document that refers to the link between letters and sounds;
(and this is in reference to writing, not reading), and this sentence
can be construed as endorsing a ‘student responsibility’ model of
reading development which is contrary to the intention of the Initial
Advice document. There is a further reference to sound-letter
correspondences (5.2.2) which invites confusion as it can be read as
supporting the debunked three cueing system which confuses the skills
needed for reading/decoding and the skills needed for comprehension.
Also
contrary to the Initial Advice paper is the suggestion in the Shape
paper that systematic teaching of sound-letter correspondences is of
benefit to some but not to all children. This raises the question of
who decides and on what bases is the decision made that one particular
child
requires systematic teaching while another child does not require systematic teaching?
The
Shape paper does not reflect Ms Gillard’s announcement that the National Curriculum would
be “underpinned by a renewed focus on literacy and numeracy”.
2. Despite claiming that the Shape paper was prepared following extensive consultation with all stakeholders, no recognised reading researcher was consulted, and requests that recognised reading researchers should be consulted were ignored.Any
individual who can read themselves can claim to be a reading
researcher, but the term 'recognised’ reading researcher refers to
those academics who have undertaken evidence-based research in the area
of learning to read and write and how these skills are best taught,
have published their research papers in peer-reviewed scientific
journals, and have been recognised for the merit of their body of work
by, for example, being elected as a Fellow of the Academy of the Social
Sciences in Australia or the Australian Academy of Science. None of the
numerous individuals who are considered recognised reading researchers
in Australia was consulted during
the development of the
Shape document despite written requests which included the names and contact details of recognised reading researchers.
3. No genuine consultation took place with K-2 primary classroom teachers, classroom teachers using evidence-based proven effective initial or remedial reading teaching strategies, or Special Education
teachers with proven success in helping struggling readers. Despite Ms
Gillard’s statement that there would be a “transparent” process, the
contents of the Shape paper
were developed after private consultation with a very narrow group of
individuals who did not represent the range of views on how best to
teach initial reading.According
to the National Curriculum Board’s published information about the
consultation process: “… a small group of nominees from the Australian
Association for the Teaching of English (AATE), Australian Literacy
Educators’ Association (ALEA), e:lit – the Primary English Teaching
Association and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
(TESOL) met with the writer
to discuss the feedback from the forum and its implications for developing the curriculum.”
The
teacher professional associations, AATE, ALEA, and PETA have very
limited membership among classroom teachers. According to their own
published Annual General Reports, these associations are better known
to politicians and the media than to classroom teachers and
their
membership base amongst classroom teachers is so low that their
existence is threatened. Executive positions on these associations are
mostly held by academics from Schools and Faculties of Education or by
individuals with no expertise in basic research on learning to read and
write and how these skills are best taught.
For example, AATE has
traditionally been controlled by University Professors of Literature,
or academics from University Schools and Faculties of Education, and
only recently by practising secondary school teachers. The AATE, while
not claiming any expertise in the teaching of beginning reading,
advises its members to reject the evidence-based findings of the
National Reading Panel and the National Inquiry into the Teaching of
Literacy. The AATE is a member of the international Whole Language
Umbrella group of associations.
ALEA president Jan Turbill is an
academic from the Wollongong University School of Education with
expertise in Language and Linguistics, and is a close associate of past
ALEA president Professor Brian Cambourne, who is also an Executive
Board Member of the Whole Language Umbrella. ALEA advisers its members
to reject the National Reading Panel (NRP) and National Inquiry into
the Teaching of Literacy (NITL) findings and this association is a
member of
the Whole Language Umbrella.
PETA – now known as e:lit
– president Dr Margery Hertzberg is an academic from the University of
Western Sydney School of Education who lectures in English as a Second
Language, Drama and Literacy. Past office holdersof PETA include Jan
Turbill, currently president of ALEA
and Robyn Ewing from the
University Of Sydney School Of Education. PETA/e:lit advises its
members to reject the findings of the National Reading Panel and the
National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy and is a member of the
Whole Language Umbrella.
The focus of TESOL teachers is teaching
spoken English to non-English speaking students and not in teaching all
children to read and write. TESOL executive positions are held by
academics with interests in areas like linguistics and ‘functional’
grammar.
Special arrangements were made so that the writer of the
Shape paper could meet privately with individuals from AATE, ALEA, PETA
and TESOL, despite these individuals having little or no classroom
experience in teaching students to read, but the professional
associations with demonstrated expertise in teaching and learning
beginning reader and remedial reading, were not invited to meet with
the writer of the Shape paper.
The professional associations
excluded from the consultation process includes the Developmental
Disorders of Language and Literacy (DDOLL) network which represents
researchers and research-oriented practitioners investigating and
treating disorders of the production and comprehension of spoken and
written language skills. This association has a particular focus on
teaching beginning reading to all children and its members include
Australia’s foremost recognised researchers on learning to read and
reading difficulties.
Learning Difficulties Australia (LDA) is an
association of teachers and other professionals dedicated to improving
the performance of underachieving students through effective teaching
practices based on scientific research.
AUSPELD, the Australian
Federation of SPELD Associations, responds to the needs of children and
adults with Specific Learning Difficulties/Disabilities, such as the
learning disability dyslexia, and those who care for, teach, and work
with them.
LDA and AUSPELD are the professional associations for
Special Education teachers who are the ‘front-line’ teachers for
children struggling to learn to read.
4.
Despite claiming rigorous and world class status, the document does not
reflect the findings and recommendations of the NITL which were
accepted by COAG, and does not reflect the findings of internationally
accepted best practice in curriculum content for K-2 English Curriculum.While
claiming to be informed by the findings of the Australian National
Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy, Paris 2005, the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National
Reading Panel 2000, the Shape paper makes no mention of the central and
most significant finding: that the most effective way to teach all
students to read and write is direct, explicit, intensive and
systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary and comprehension and that ‘synthetic’ phonics is the most
effective form of phonics instruction.
Furthermore, by endorsing the
‘play-based’, child centred approach to Early Years, the Shape paper
ignores the fact that real learning requires real work and that a
‘play-based’ approach contradicts the Board’s stated claim that their
intention is to develop a “rigorous, world class” Curriculum.
5. Important recommendations and strong comments about critical wording in the Shape document that was verbally expressed during the Forums have been disregarded.While
all stakeholders were invited to attend Forums and contribute to
discussion, strong recommendations from forum participants at the
Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth Forums for clear statements that all
students benefit from explicit and systematic instruction in the
complex code of sound/letter correspondences have been disregarded. As
a result, the Shape paper assumes children can read, lacks focus on the
specific skills of initial reading, and provides ambiguous and
confusing guidelines for teachers of initial reading.
6.
Despite the National Curriculum Board’s mission statement to produce an
‘inclusive’Curriculum, and repeated assurances that the Board welcomes
and encourages all stakeholders, including the wider community, to participate, the Shape paper uses phrases that would confuse, mislead and alienate the ordinary person. The
Shape paper uses many terms that have one meaning in Plain English and
a different, sometimes contradictory, meaning when used by Educators.
Therefore, before any claim that the Board has fulfilled its obligation
to welcome and encourage all stakeholders to participate; the Board
should require clarification of terms such as ‘literacy’, ‘authentic’,
‘purposeful’, ‘embedded’, ‘semantic and syntactic clues’, and ‘make
meaning’.
The
Shape of the National Curriculum: English can be downloaded from the website of the National Curriculum Board at
www.ncb.org.au/verve/_resources/Australian_ Curriculum_-_English.pdf. Media reports on this response can be found at
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
story/0,25197,25544345-601,00.html,
www.theage.com.au/national/agent-of-change-0090529-bpw6.html?page=-1, and
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25549159-13881,00.html.
From the LDA Bulletin, Volume 41, No 2, June 2009Literacy teaching guide: phonics
The NSW Department of
Education has just released a new guide on the teaching of phonics.
This guide, together with a companion guide on the teaching of phonemic
awareness, recommends systematic teaching of synthetic phonics in
kindergarten and the early primary years, together with the systematic
teaching of phonemic awareness.
These documents are consistent
with the recommendations of the Australian National Inquiry into the
Teaching of Literacy, as well as the recommendations of overseas
reports such as the UK Rose Report on the teaching of early reading,
and are based on the research evidence as to how children learn to read
and effective strategies for the teaching of beginning reading.
These
guides mark a significant change in the approach to the teaching of
initial reading in NSW, and provide guidelines that will be of value to
all teachers who are looking for resources to assist in the
implementation of effective programs for the teaching of initial
reading.
These guidelines are currently available for download by NSW DET staff only, from the NSW Department of Education website at:
www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/policies/literacy/material/guides/index.htm
<!--EndFragment-->