[senco-forum] dyslexia

You may not like this but -

Hi again.

apologies for the two incomplete mails - somehow they decided to send
themselves...

fMRI has clearly demonstrated that dyslexics have different brain function
when given tasks to do with converting phonemes to graphemes and vice
versa.  Duncan Milne summarises this very succinctly.  At the BDA conference
in 2004 Veronica Berninger also showed slides of fMRI of dyslexic brains
before and after intervention and the brain of the non dyslexic.  The
dyslexic brain was more active in the right hemisphere and less active in
the left hemisphere than the non-dyslexic brain prior to intervention.
Great for flying a plane, becoming an architect, an engineer, a graphic
designer etc...  not so good for reading and writing.  Interestingly, after
intervention the dyslexic brain was less active on the right side and more
active on the left side although both sides were still different from the
non dyslexic brain - again having more activity on the right and less on the
left than the non dyslexic.

This leads to two conclusions abut intervention:

1   that differential intervention for dyslexics is a necessity, not a
luxury... different brain function means that different teaching is needed

2   that ongoing support will be needed as the difference, although it can
be altered, can never be completely adapted to the pattern of the
non-dyslexic brain (and we would not want it to be and lose all those other
wonderful right brain qualities).

Berninger found, as have countless others, and as Milne also points out,
that dyslexics need more of exactly what they find difficult - converting
phonemes to graphemes and vice versa with a good dose of phonological
awareness thrown in.  This is written about in detail in our book Dyslexia
Guidance (it is not a straightforward process - it needs some fine-tuned
personalised teaching and is best done on withdrawal and 1 to 1).  This is
what has altered brain function to give dyslexics access to reading and
writing at a level that allows them to compete with the non dyslexics on a
more level (but still tilted) playing field.  There are degrees of dyslexia
and there are differences in need as Martin Miles pointed out too.  Had it
not been for his Acceleread Accelewrite there is one particularly severely
affected pupil of mine that I would have failed completely.  ARAW shifted
his non-word reading from the 1st to the 24th percentile when all other
targeted dyslexia teaching had failed.  (BTW he is now 18 and has written to
me saying that he is about to go into university to study photography - he
is getting distinctions in the visual arts.  The lad is a gifted dyslexic
(IQ at least 130 - they could not measure it any further when he was 9 as he
was illiterate at that time) who struggled so much to acquire reading and
writing as he was very severely dyslexic as assessed by the EP).  I could
not agree with Martin more that the severity of dyslexia tailors the
teaching too.  Dirk Bakker wrote about L and P type dyslexia and again this
paper led me to Scrambler - without Scrambler one particular student would
have stagnated completely - this case history is written up in the Spring
1996 Dyslexia Review.  I can send the article to anyone who wants it.
Scrambler is no longer available from Holland but there is a group of IT
students keen for a project in Dubai and I have asked them to reinvent it -
they are working on a new version with our own twists to it (thank you to
Keith Holland for his input on that one).  Once it is up and running I'll
let you all know.  BTW, they have checked copyright issues with a lawyer and
are clear to go.

Interestingly what Berninger also found on fMRI is that teaching phonics has
a ceiling of effectiveness.  She warned not to create "death by phonics"  -
she found that once the left hemisphere had been activated (I like the
phrase "alphabetic principle") - that is once the alphabetic principle has
been understood and applied, then the teaching needs to shift to morphology
to have a further impact on brain function.  Again, she found that the
teaching of morphology impacted on brain function in a way that was
evidenced clearly through fMRI.  I think that the upper circuit that Milne
describes (again fMRI evidenced) is the synthetic phonic route and this ties
in neatly with Berninger's findings.

The point made by another forumer about lack of speed of processing  is also
evidenced through brain scans.  There was a group of researchers who, in
1996, published a paper showing that dyslexics, having had specialised
teaching, processed serially rather than in parallel when working on
literacy tasks.  Prior to the teaching the link between the visual and
auditory areas of the brain did not both activate.  Aryan van der Leij spoke
at the BDA conference and his concluding line is "With dyslexia, lack of
speed is everywhere".  Which points towards exam concessions being of prime
importance for them.

http://www.bdainternationalconference.org/2004/presentations/index.shtml for
a list of presentations and detail on how to obtain the CD-ROM of papers.

So the label "dyslexic" is highly useful.  In our school, it means that we
offer a place in our dyslexia unit - the places are too precious to be
offered without this label.  Dyslexic students do not do better with more of
the same.  They need phonics and phonological awareness teaching that
non-dyslexics can do without that specialised teaching.  What I have also
led in our school is a move to take the dyslexia programme of phonics into
the mainstream classroom - which we did well before the Rose report.  In the
mainstream classroom it can be taught to groups and managed much faster.  We
are now using Ruth Miskin literacy in the mainstream classrooms and getting
some great results.

Philippa

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Stuart Lucas <lucass at loretto.com> wrote:

> You may not like this but -
> You have to ensure exam access arrangements are in place and that pupils
> who fulfill the criteria in ye ol' JCQ booklet are not disadvantaged -
> Those with dyslexia generally are disadvantaged in certain exams -
>
> If you are looking to support in the exam situation then this will
> generally help the pupil with dyslexia no end - and it will generally be
> a support required at Uni.
>
> This serious aspect then allows one to focus on the everyday support
> measures.
>
> Quick, to the point - but yes, not the whole story.
> Stuart
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
> [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of julie
> cozens
> Sent: 06 March 2008 18:48
> To: Biff Crabbe; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] dyslexia - screening/testing/assessment
>
> Biff  - I found your posting really thought-provoking. Thank you for
> 'wrestling with my statement' - I have done the same with many of yours!
>
>
>  I agree absolutely that assessment has to identify needs - I just dont
> think it has to be about labels.
>
>  The question I am still wrestling with  is just how, exactly is
> 'dyslexia' a good starting point?   How would this label in itself
> inform what you do,  - what would you do differently for a 'dyslexic'
> pupil as opposed to another struggling pupil who had presented similarly
> but who didnt get the label?  For me, the label just isnt important -
> certainly not when there is still no one agreed definition of dyslexia,
> and when it does not in itself highlight a particular path of
> intervention.
>
>  By 'assessment through teaching and appropriately targeted support..'
> I meant that there is no one- off  testing that EPs come in and do to
> 'assess for dyslexia' . Its a process of promoting of high quality
> teaching, and a careful evaluation of the pupil's response to it, and to
> increasingly refined and individualised interventions over time. EPs and
> specialist teachers support schools with this in many ways - and
> individual asssessment is still likely to be one of them.
>
>    I agree that 'qualifying' rather than needing is a horrible notion -
> but I sometimes think this construct is maintained as much by the very
> process of labelling as it is by mean LEAs.
>
>
>  Julie
>
>
> Biff Crabbe <ba at biffc.vispa.com> wrote:
>  'My point was that this is assessment to inform intervention - not
> assessment with a purpose of identifying 'dyslexics', or a special group
> of
> students who qualify for a particular type of support.'
>
> Julie - I have wrestled with this statement, but still hate it. In order
> to
> inform intervention, assessment has to identify needs. And the notion of
>
> 'qualifying' for support (rather than simply 'needing' it) is definitely
> an
> LEA construct that schools have been forced to embrace.
>
> A few days back, Martin (Miles) asked the forum about ways in which
> SENCOs
> seek to use and deploy the EP resource.
>
> In my first few years as a SENCO I hoped to draw on the expertise of the
> EP
> in identifying the nature and scope of a child's needs, and we would
> then
> put our heads together to identify the type of support interventions
> that
> would meet the needs. The EP knew stuff that I didn't about the nature
> of
> children's learning difficulties; I learned to devise individual, small
> group and curriculum-based support interventions. But it started with
> the
> EP making an assessment of the individual child's difficulties and
> needs,
> and this always involved (her) spending some time in the child's
> company.
> The more completely I could describe the child's difficulties initially,
> the
> more refined and focused the EP's assessment could be (and it might only
> be
> an observation of and a chat with the child).
>
> In later years (and with different EPs) more of the EP time came to be
> allocated (by the LEA) to 'systemic' bits - assistance in understanding
> and
> completing the latest new whizz of a paperwork scheme for 'monitoring',
> looking at 'criteria' for placement at a particular support stage,
> moderation processes etc. There was more discussion about longer lists
> of
> children (and the longer the list, the shorter each segment of the
> discussion). Inexorably, less and less time was spent by the EP with
> children.
>
> You say that, 'we promote a careful process of assessment through
> teaching
> and appropriately targeted support for any pupil who needs it.' And
> therein
> lies a summary of the change in the role. What is 'assessment through
> teaching', and who is carrying out the assessment that the EP is
> 'promoting'?
>
> As to your previous message about the usefulness of 'dyslexia' as a
> label
> (long discussion issue that has cropped up often on the forum), I'd
> still
> find it more useful as a starting point than 'shares some of the same
> difficulties as the common or garden poor reader'.
>
> Regards
>
> Biff Crabbe
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "julie cozens"
> To: "senco forum"
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] dyslexia - screening/testing/assessment
>
>
> Hello Phillipa
>
> I have a copy of your book and I have heard about your successful work
> in
> Dubai.
> I am also aware of Martin Turners work.
>
> I certainly didnt mean to give the impression in my posting that we
> never
> assess children in Devon! I did say in my email that we promote a
> careful
> process of assessment through teaching and appropriately targeted
> support
> for any pupil who needs it.
>
> My point was that this is assessment to inform intervention - not
> assessment with a purpose of identifying 'dyslexics', or a special group
> of
> students who qualify for a particular type of support.
>
> Hope this clarifies
>
> best wishes
>
> Julie
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.4/1310 - Release Date:
> 04/03/2008
> 08:35
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>  Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! for Good
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Loretto School is a Registered Charity, number SCO13978
> Registered Office: 16 Heriot Row, Edinburgh, EH3 6HR, number SCO59500
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>