The Learning People

Dyslexia: News from the US

Note from The Learning People: The UK Government heavily endorses phonic-based reading instruction for all learners, regardless of their thinking style. While phonic approaches work well for many learners, they tend to be ineffective for dyslexic thinkers.

The following report looks at the catastrophic failure of a US reading scheme, Reading First, that has received over $1billion of federal funds. Reading First places strong emphasis on phonic instruction.

The Beginning of the End of Reading First (Maybe…)

By Laura Zink de Diaz, Davis Facilitator in Bogotá, Colombia

 

For those of you who’ve always felt there was a disturbing odor of snake-oil in the unremitting use of the phrase “scientifically-based reading research” by supporters of the No Child Left Behind Act, you now have confirmation that your sense of smell is just fine.

 

In April of this year, the US Department of Education released a report on Reading First, the major ingredient in the NCLB recipe for ensuring that all children read at grade level by the end of the third grade. This comes almost a year after the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report (in May 2007) accusing several people central to the development of Reading First of conflict of interest.

 

In case you missed it, or have forgotten the details, the OIG’s report revealed that individuals with significant professional and or financial connections to some of the instructional materials favored by Reading First directors were involved in the grant approval process. For example, at least three individuals with ties to the Direct Instruction (DI) approach to reading pedagogy were named to the peer review panel, which evaluated state applications for Reading First funding. According to the OIG report, the individuals in question were involved in reviewing 23 state applications for Reading First grant money and served on seven of the 16 sub-panels that reviewed state applications. One of them led five of the panels.

 

To make a long and sordid story short, when the applications that states submitted included other approaches to reading instruction, they were often denied, in some cases repeatedly, until they were re-written to include use of Direct Instruction. This violates a federal prohibition against endorsement by the government of specific curricula. In addition, it’s alleged that the subversion of the panel’s work in this way made a LOT of money for those panel members with financial ties to DI and other reading programs favored by the directors of Reading First.

 

Moving ahead, this year’s report is titled Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report, and is available for download on-line. It’s 211 pages long, but its findings are succinctly expressed in the executive summary:

 

“On average, across the 18 participating sites, estimated impacts on student reading comprehension test scores were not statistically significant.”

 

This is the most damning of the findings. However, there’s more:

 

“On average Reading First increased instructional time spent on the five essential components of reading instruction promoted by the program (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension).”

 

So this stunning lack of impact was achieved not only by insisting that schools use only the programs the Reading First directors recommended, but also by increasing instructional time. Reading First schools devote an extra 100 minutes per day to reading, the equivalent of an extra six weeks each year. It is virtually inconceivable that an extra 100 minutes per day could be devoted to reading instruction without obtaining any significant impact, no matter what programs were in use! I suspect that school children could spend that same amount of time reading and re-reading Captain Underpants to better effect than slogging through the Direct Instruction drills imposed on them in most Reading First schools!

 

Another finding:

 

“Average impacts on reading comprehension and classroom instruction did not change systematically over time as sites gained experience with Reading First.”

 

So, practice did not make perfect. And:

 

“Study sites that received their Reading First grants later in the federal funding process (between January and August 2004) experienced positive and statistically significant impacts both on the time first and second grade teachers spent on the five essential components of reading instruction and on first and second grade reading comprehension.” (Executive summary, p. ix)

 

Essentially, the longer a school followed Reading First guidelines, the worse their students performed on tests of reading comprehension.

 

As I was putting together this column, more delicious news: June 21, 2008, Alyson Klein, reported at edweek.org that Reading First would be “eliminated under a fiscal 2009 spending measure approved unanimously …by a House Appropriations subcommittee.” Representative David R. Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, cited as the basis for this decision the results of the impact study and “mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and cronyism, as documented by the inspector general.”

 

The list of defects of Reading First would fill this entire issue. They start with the unproven assumption that phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension are the “five essential components of reading instruction.” This recipe for reading came from the National Reading Panel report of 2000, which concluded that phonics is the answer to the difficulties of all types of struggling readers. (The panel members came to this conclusion by – surprise! – excluding from their review any study that didn’t focus on phonics.) And then there’s the classic example of fuzzy math buried in the goal of the program: that all children should “read at grade level by the end of third grade.” Since grade level is defined as the average of the scores of all students in a particular grade, it is a Lake Woebegone-eque fantasy to expect all children to read “at grade level,” no matter what grade you look at.

 

But these are topics for an entire volume on the history of education reform in the United States. For now, I’m content to see that the truth about the snake oil is finally coming to light.

 

References and Further Information:

 

Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report. Complete report available as downloadable PDF document at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20084016/index.asp

 

Bracey, Gerald. “DIBELS Earns Bracey Rotten Apple Award” Available on-line at: http://susanohanian.org/anti-dibels/node/96

 

Garan, Elaine M. “Beyond the Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Phonics.” Available on-line at: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0103gar.htm

 

Klein, Alyson. “House Panel Would Kill “Reading First” Funding.” Education Week. Available on-line at: http://tinyurl.com/3jekqq

 

Medige, Bernadette. “Nonsense Words that Sent Your Kid to Summer School” Buffalo News, August 11, 2007. Available on-line at: susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.html?id=3051

 

Learning People Trainer Helps Policewoman Pass Sergeant’s Exam with Flying Colours

Rebecca first came into contact with Jacqui Flisher – a Learning People Davis Facilitator – as part of Jacqui’s work as Student Support Tutor within a police force.

 

Jacqui and Rebecca quickly became friends and would meet up over a cup of coffee. It was during one of these ‘coffee breaks’ that it came to light that Rebecca had always wanted to seek promotion to a Police Sergeant, but did not feel confident in her abilities to prepare for and sit the necessary examination.

 

Jacqui devised a study plan for Rebecca to prepare her for her exam and she was also given the Davis® ‘tools’ of Dial, Release, Orientation and Reading for Meaning, together with using Concept Mastery which enabled her to remember the varying definitions used in law.

 

By using these techniques, Rebecca is now able:

 

-     to relax when confronted by stressful situations

-     to regulate her sleep patterns

-     to study effectively for her forthcoming promotion exams

-     to immediately comprehend written text in detail, and to recall much of the information weeks later

-     to retain information needed for her exams

 

Rebecca sat the exam in March and passed, coming 410^th out of a total of 9,062 candidates who sat the exam on the same day. Not only that, but she scored nearly 71%, putting her in the top 5% of all candidates.

 

When asked if she would have contemplated undertaking her exam if she had not worked with Jacqui, Rebecca replied that she would have certainly shied away from the thought of even attempting the exam as she has done so often in the past.

 

As a result Rebecca can now not only look forward to a bonus for passing her exam, plus she could now be in line for a substantial pay rise as well. Fired up by her success, Rebecca is now looking forward to the time in the near future when she will start studying for her Inspector’s exam, confident that she will be able to achieve and surpass the 60% that she will need to pass, together with the further rise in salary that this would bring.

 

 

"Honour Dyslexia" Petition: Downing Street's Response

Earlier this year, we submitted the following petition to Downing Street:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to reclassify dyslexia as a thinking style, not a disability.”

Details of Petition:

“Dyslexia is currently classed as a disability by law. This is intensely damaging to the self-esteem of dyslexics. In fact, dyslexics are strong visual-spatial thinkers and often have heightened intuition. While some find the world of work difficult, many excel in areas such as architecture, engineering, design, entrepreneurism and other fields requiring visual, intuitive and/or lateral thinking. There is also mounting evidence that dyslexics can succeed at all academic tasks when instruction is appropriate to the dyslexic thinking style. As a society, our focus needs to be on catering adequately for all thinking styles, not writing some of them off as disabilities. We urge the Government to submit new laws to Parliament to reframe dyslexia as a thinking style, not a disability. Care must be taken to ensure that the rights and protections currently afforded to dyslexics under the Disability Discrimination Act are transferred to a new Equality of Thinking Style law. The dyslexic way of thinking deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Note: the term “dyslexics” instead of “people with dyslexia” is used here intentionally. Dyslexia is not an affliction.”

Here is the Government’s response

Thank you for your e-petition concerning dyslexia.

The Government is committed to ensuring that everybody has the opportunity to participate fully in society and anti-discrimination legislation supports this aim. 

The Government considers that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is the most suitable vehicle for protecting dyslexic people from discrimination based on dyslexia.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended, does not define every dyslexic person as disabled. It is the effect that the dyslexia has on the individual, rather than their being dyslexic, which determines whether they are a disabled person. In general, for the purposes of the Act, a person is a disabled person if they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Where dyslexia has this effect on an individual, that person is a disabled person for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and thus is entitled to the full protection from discrimination that is provided by the Act, including from discrimination that arises from a failure to make a reasonable adjustment.    

The Act requires reasonable adjustments to be made for disabled people not just in employment and access to goods, services, facilities and premises, but also in access to education, the functions of public authorities and private clubs. A disabled person who considers that they have been subject to disability discrimination, including as a consequence of a failure by an employer, service provider or other duty holder to meet their duty of reasonable adjustment, may take enforcement action through civil procedures. 

Consequently, the Government considers that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provides appropriate levels of protection from discrimination for people who have dyslexia and it has no plans to enact legislation specifically for protection against discrimination based on dyslexia.

Sourced from: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page16509