Response to Science and Technology Committee report on Government policy on dyslexia

Friday 18th December 2009

Response to the Science and Technology Committee  ‘Evidence Check’

Dr John Rack, Director of the Dyslexia-SpLD Trust and member of Sir Jim Rose’s Expert Advisory Group.

The Science and Technology Committee (STC), consisting of 13 Members of Parliament, under the chairmanship of Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat) published its first Evidence Check on December 18, focusing on The Government’s policies on early literacy teaching and dyslexia.  The committee report gives a mixed verdict, positive in terms of the evidence-base for policy on early literacy teaching, but negative about the evidence supporting the roll-out of  ‘Reading Recovery’ and negative about the focus on dyslexia, following the Rose Report.  Here I focus on the conclusions in relation to dyslexia and argue that the committee have made some significant errors in their reasoning.

The STC Committee concluded: “The Rose Report’s definition of dyslexia is exceedingly broad and says that dyslexia is a continuum with no clear cut-off points. The definition is so broad and blurred at the edges that it is difficult to see how it could be useful in any diagnostic sense”.

This conclusion demonstrates several misunderstandings.  Many things are on a continuum – from mild to severe – but one may still make judgements about the point on the continuum when there is a need to take special notice,  the point at which something may be seen as a problem or when some action must be taken. This applies not only to learning abilities and skills, including abilities in reading or maths, but also to qualities that are measured physically such as weight or blood pressure.  The precise point when something is ‘too high’ will be a matter of judgement and will take other factors into account but we would never say that a scale is useless just because it covers a spectrum or a continuum.  If we followed the select committee’s advice and rejected all concepts, which are on a continuum, we would have very little left!

The STC’s second conclusion is that  “that ‘specialist dyslexia teachers’ could be renamed ‘specialist literacy difficulty teachers’”.  There is a good point being made here, but also an important point being missed.  Yes indeed specialist dyslexia teachers will be very well placed to provide help for those with ‘literacy difficulties’; Jim Rose recognised this in his report which focused on dyslexia and literacy difficulties.  The point being missed is that pupils with dyslexic difficulties have needs that are not confined to literacy – often problems with attention, maths, memory and verbal expression for example.

Having criticised Rose’s definition as being too broad, it is ironic that the Select Committee go on to conclude that ‘There are a range of reasons why people may struggle to learn to read and the Government’s focus on dyslexia risks obscuring the broader problem” yet they also say that ‘educational interventions are the same for all poor readers, whether they have been diagnosed with dyslexia or not’. Any skilled teacher will tell you that this is simply not true; good teaching is dynamic, adjusted and adapted to the  responses of individual learners.

Most controversial is the conclusion that The Government’s ‘ specific focus on ‘specialist dyslexia teachers’ is not evidence-based’.  At the same time, the STC concluded that ‘The Government’s support for training teachers to become better at helping poor readers is welcome and to be supported’.  At this point, one begins to wonder whether there is perhaps something about the word ‘dyslexia’ itself to which the committee object.  The work done by Sir Jim Rose’s review showed that those trained as specialist dyslexic teachers were being well-used in schools to support pupils with a wide range of literacy and learning difficulties. That finding was one factor that contributed to the decision to provide more funding to train such teachers.

The penultimate conclusion of the STC is welcomed by the Dyslexia-SpLD Trust, namely that   “future research on the impact of literacy interventions on children with dyslexia should be well designed randomised controlled trials, using appropriate control groups …and test a range of literacy interventions”.  Part of the problem with the conclusions of the select committee derive from the fact that there is a shortage of evidence, but some well-designed studies do exist which support the principles of teaching that covered in specialist dyslexia training courses.  Open questions exist about the best and most efficient ways to put those principles into practice, but we know enough to be making a good start.

The final conclusion of the STC is welcomed in part, namely that the Government should  “prioritise its efforts on the basis of research, rather than commissioning on the basis of the priorities of lobby groups”.  These two approaches are not necessarily in conflict; many – if not most – lobby groups would claim that their priorities are supported by evidence.  It is also naïve to suggest that researchers are uninfluenced by their personal experiences and agendas for change.  Even some of those on the Select Committee appear to have been influenced by their pre-existing views on the subject of dyslexia.  

Forming a view on the basis of the evidence in order to inform practice is a complex process and the call for independent advisory groups to consider the evidence is welcomed.  Indeed this is exactly what those of us on Sir Jim Rose’s group thought we had been asked to do.  On the basis of its first report we would have to question whether the Science and Technology Select Committee are better able to do this job.