BULLETINLearning Difficulties Australia

Volume 42 No 2 July 2010

There has been intense media scrutiny of the MySchool website over the past few months, which came to a head with the proposed boycott

of NAPLAN testing by the Australian Education Union, involving teachers in all states. Of course, once the possibility of eye-catching photos of children battling through picket lines had been removed, the media lost interest. Throughout this though, there has been a remarkable lack of attention on the major forthcoming change in Australian education – the Australian National Curriculum.

On 1 March, ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority) released the draft K-10 Australian Curriculum in the four learning areas of English, mathematics, science and history for national consultation. According to ACARA Board chair, Professor Barry McGaw AO, “It is now time to engage the education and broader community across Australia in a conversation about what it is we want young people to learn in these four areas... The overall aim is to produce a final curriculum in English, history, mathematics, and science that equips all young Australians with the essential skills, knowledge and capabilities to

thrive and compete in the globalised world and information- rich workplaces of the current century.” These are admirable goals indeed. LDA was hopeful that, inspired by the visit of Sir Jim Rose, and with Professor McGaw on the same platform as Sir Jim at the LDA event in Melbourne last year, perhaps the new curriculum would have clear evidence-based guidelines for the teaching of literacy. However, while the new curriculum does indeed recognise the role of phonics in the teaching of initial reading, there are still some concerns. In particular, the level of guidance provided to teachers in implementing the curriculum. While the curriculum provides an outline of what to teach and does not tell teachers how to teach the content, for some beginning readers achieving the ‘what’ is only possible with certain kinds of ‘how’! In other words, it is clear from the literature, that only systematic, intensive phonics teaching

From the President

Articles and advertising in the Bulletin do not necessarily reflect the opinions or carry the endorsements of the Association

Contents

Continued on page 2...

p2 CouncilMembers

LDANotices

NoticeofAGM

p3 ResponsefromLDAtotheDraftAustralianCurriculum

p5 CallfornominationstoLDACouncil2010/2011

p6 DirectInstructioncomestoCapeYork:MirandaDevine

p7 DyslexiaintheUnitedKingdomandthe‘Dyslexiafriendly’qualitymark:NolaFirth

p11 SubtypesofdevelopmentaldyslexiaandtheDualRoutemodel:KristyJones,AnneCastlesandSaskiaKohnen

p14 WhyIQisirrelevanttothediagnosisoflearningdisabilities:LindaSiegel

p16 Whatmakesagoodschool?:LynHenshall

p18 ConsultantNews:JanRoberts

ReportfromVictorianReferralOfficer:ElaineMcLeish

p20 Membershipform

LDA Mission StatementLearning Difficulties Australia is an association of teachers and other professionals dedicated to improving the performance of underachieving students through effective teaching practices based on scientific research both in the classroom and through individualised instruction.

For more details of LDA activities, professional development opportunities and publications, visit our website at www.ldaustralia.org

BULLETIN–JULY2010

2

MembershipofLDACouncil2009/2010

OFFICEBEARERSPresident

LyndseyNickels(NSW)President-Elect

LouiseMercer(Qld)ImmediatePastPresident

MaxColtheart(NSW)Treasurer

CraigWright(Qld)Secretary

MollydeLemos(Vic)

COUNCILMEMBERSMargaretCameron(SA)AnneCastles(NSW)JoanCooper(Vic)

RuthFielding-BarnsleyTAS)AlisonMadelaine(NSW)ElaineMcLeish(VIC)BarbaraNielsen(SA)JanRoberts(Vic)

PyeTwaddell(NSW)

COMMITTEESANDCONVENORSExecutive/ManagementGroupConvenor:LyndseyNickelsAdministrationCommitteeConvenor:MollydeLemosPublicationsCommitteeConvenor:AlisonMadelaineConsultants’CommitteeConvenor:JanRoberts

PUBLICATIONSJournalEditors:KevinWheldalland

AlisonMadelaineJournalAssociateEditor:RuthFielding-

BarnsleyBulletinEditors:MollydeLemos,

MargaretCameron,andCraigWright

WEBSITEWebsiteEditor:MargaretCameron

Webmaster:DavidTehan

REFERRALSERVICEReferralOfficer,Victoria:ElaineMcLeish

ADMINISTRATIONAdministrationOfficer:KerrieMcMahon

LDA NOTICES

ensures that the maximum number of beginning readers succeed. Our concern is that without greater specification of the curriculum, the potential for the curriculum to provide an ‘education revolution’ will be lost.

The LDA Council, with the help of Yvonne Meyer, has submitted a response to the draft curriculum, focusing on the curriculum as it relates to the teaching of reading (see page 3 of this Bulletin, and on the LDA website). It is our hope that the final curriculum will address some of the weaknesses that we have identified in the draft curriculum.

Lyndsey NickelsPresident, LDA

... continued from page 1

Victorian Program of Workshops for Consultants 2010All members of LDA, as well as non-LDA members, are welcome to attend.

Sunday 25 July, 10am to 12pm, followed by a cuppa and chatTopic: Striving for Excellence – the Andrew Fildes storySpeaker: Andrew FildesVenue: SPELD Victoria, 494 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy North, 3068Deadline for booking: Monday 19 July

Sunday 24 October, 10am to 12pm, followed by a cuppa and chatTopic: Spelling software to support LD studentsSpeakers: Pat Minton and Mary DelahuntyVenue: SPELD Victoria, 494 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy North, 3068Deadline for booking: Monday 18 October

(Note that numbers for this session are limited to 15, so early booking is advised)

Fees for the above workshopCost: $25 for Consultant members of LDA.  

$30 for non-Consultant members of LDA. $10 for student members of LDA. $40 for non-members of LDA.

Booking for the WorkshopAdvance booking and payment is preferred.  Payment may be by credit card, cheque or EFT.  All payments are to be made via the Administration Officer, Kerrie McMahon (see booking form). Late bookings and payments will incur an extra charge of $10. Payment ‘at the door’ is no longer accepted.

Booking forms can be downloaded from the LDA website at ldaustralia.org, or contact either Kerrie McMahon, ldaquery@bigpond.net.au, (03) 9890 6138 or Jan Roberts, learningpathway@optusnet.com.au, (03) 9850 7465 to obtain a booking form.

Notice of AGMThe 2010 LDA Annual General Meeting will be held in Melbourne on

Saturday 16 October 1:30 pm at the Hawthorn Campus of the University of Melbourne,

442 Auburn Road, Hawthorn

followed by the presentation of the LDA Awards

JULY2010–BULLETIN

3

Background to the Teaching of Reading in AustraliaSince the late 70s and early 80s, the dominant approach to the teaching of reading in Australia was the Whole Language approach. This approach assumed that children learned to read in the same way that they learned to speak, that is, by exposure to books and reading in their environment. Under this approach there was no specific teaching of phonics. Over the last 10 years, and in response to the increasing evidence of the importance of phonics in learning to read, the Whole Language approach was modified to include a limited amount of phonics instruction, usually in the form of implicit or embedded phonics, where children are taught letter-sound relationships during the reading of connected text. This so-called balanced or multi-cueing approach often does not include systematic or explicit instruction in letter-sound correspondences, which research evidence has identified as the most effective way of teaching reading. Following concerns expressed by leading reading researchers regarding the discrepancy between the teaching practices adopted under the whole language or balanced and multi-cueing approaches and the scientific evidence with regard how children learn to read, a National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (NITL) was established to investigate the teaching of literacy in Australia. One of the major recommendations of this Inquiry, which reported in December 2005, was that:

“teachers provide systematic, direct and explicit phonics instruction so that children master the essential alphabetic code-breaking skills required for foundational reading proficiency”.

And that this should be included as part of: “an integrated approach to reading that supports the

development of oral language, vocabulary, grammar,

reading fluency, comprehension and the literacies of new technologies.” (NITL, 2005, Recommendation 2)

These recommendations were consistent with the recommendations of similar inquiries in the United States (National Reading Panel, 2000) and in the UK (Rose, 2006). However, while the reports in the US and the UK led to changes in approaches to the teaching of reading in these countries, supported by legislation, there was relatively little response to the NITL report in Australia, and little evidence of changes either in teaching practices or in the training of teachers. The only exception to this is the recent development by the NSW Department of Education of guides for the teaching of phonemic awareness and phonics, which teachers in NSW are able to download from the department’s website.

Teaching of Reading and the Australian CurriculumIn light of this background, it is both significant and welcome that the draft Australian Curriculum for English recognises the role of phonics in the teaching of initial reading, and specifies what children need to know in order to read, including the development of phonological and phonemic awareness, knowledge of letter/sound correspondences, blending and segmentation of sounds in words, and the application of this knowledge in sounding out and decoding.

At the same time, we see a number of weaknesses in the draft Australian Curriculum, which may limit the extent to which the intentions of the Curriculum in relation to the teaching of initial reading, including the systematic teaching of phonics, may be achieved.

There is a failure to distinguish between the two

Response from LDA to the Draft Australian Curriculum, with specific reference to the sections of the English Curriculum relating to the teaching of beginning readingSubmitted to the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority on 30 May 2010

Continued on page 4...

Learning Difficulties Australia is an association of teachers and other professionals dedicated to improving the performance of underachieving students through effective teaching practices based on scientific research. Our particular concern is with students who have learning difficulties, and particularly students with reading difficulties, who comprise approximately 80 per cent of students who are identified as having a learning difficulty. Research evidence indicates that effective teaching of reading in the early years of schooling is of critical importance in the development of literacy and in the prevention of reading difficulties. Our comments on the Draft Australian Curriculum therefore relate specifically to those sections of the curriculum that are relevant to the teaching of early reading, and the extent to which the curriculum is consistent with what is known about how children learn to read, and what strategies are most effective in teaching them to read.

BULLETIN–JULY2010

4

processes involved in reading, i.e. decoding and reading comprehension, as described in the simple model of reading. This leads to a confusing mix of methods, and a continuing reliance on the three cueing system, which is associated with the Whole Language approach and makes the assumption that meaning of text is derived by the synthesis of semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic cues. It is now recognised that this assumption is seriously flawed, and that pictures, guessing and use of context play no part in word recognition. Word recognition depends on recognition of grapheme phonemic correspondences, either through decoding or sight word recognition, while comprehension depends on general language comprehension, which is common to both listening comprehension and reading comprehension. Semantic and syntactic cues play no part in word recognition, and graphophonic cues play no part in reading comprehension. Failure to recognise this distinction could lead to the encouragement of inappropriate strategies in teaching children to read.

The structure of the document makes it difficult to follow the logical sequence of steps in the systematic teaching of phonics. The curriculum is divided into three strands, Language, Literature and Literacy, with most of the content relating to the teaching of phonics placed in the Language strand. However, content relating to reading strategies is placed in the Literacy strand, which covers both reading and reading comprehension, and includes references to the use of phonic knowledge to read text. For example, under Reading Strategies at the Kindergarten level, students are expected to “use emerging grammatical and phonic knowledge, and meaning and context to read and view print and digital texts”, while at Year 4, they are expected to use “word identification strategies such as predicting using context and knowledge of phonics, grammar, sentence structure and text organisation”. The achievement standards, on the other hand, are presented separately for listening, reading and writing. This makes it difficult to relate the achievement standards to the content statements, and to follow the progression of skills relating to the achievement of reading. This organisation of the curriculum differs markedly from that followed in other comparable curriculum documents. For example, in the 1997 California English Language Arts Content Standards, developed after the report of the US National Reading Panel and in consultation with leading reading experts, the English curriculum is divided into four major areas: Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking, and Written and Oral English Language Conventions, with each of these main areas divided into sections. The sections under Reading include Word Analysis, Fluency and Systematic Vocabulary Development, Reading Comprehension, and Literary Response and Analysis, with the Word Analysis, Fluency and Systematic Vocabulary Development

section further sub-divided under the headings Concepts About Print, Phonemic Awareness, Decoding and Word Recognition, and Vocabulary and Concept Development. These categories are consistent from Kindergarten to Grade 10, although obviously the nature and complexity of the content changes from year to year. This allows for tracking of development in specific skill areas from one level to the next. The recently released US Draft Common Core State Standards for English Arts and Literacy also includes a very useful two-page summary of Foundational Reading Skills covering Kindergarten to Grade 3, under the headings Print Concepts, Phonological Awareness, Phonics and Word Recognition, and Fluency. These summaries provide a very useful framework for getting an overview of the areas to be covered in the teaching of early reading skills, and an indication of the content to be covered at each year level. It is suggested that ACARA develop a similar summary for the Australian curriculum to provide an overview of the content statements as well as the more detailed elaborations that relate specifically to the teaching of beginning reading.

In the case of the draft Australian Curriculum, the descriptor headings used to cover phonological and phonemic awareness and phonics are not consistent with the terms generally used to cover these areas, and could lead to confusion. Skills relating to phonological and phonemic awareness are listed under the heading Sounds, Letters and Words, while skills relating to phonics (letter sound correspondences) comes under the descriptor heading Phonic and Word Knowledge. It is suggested that to avoid confusion between the different skills relating to phonological and phonemic awareness and phonics, the descriptor heading Phonological and Phonemic Awareness be used to cover skills relating to phonological and phonemic awareness, and the descriptor heading Phonics and Word Identification Skills be used to cover the skills relating to the recognition of letter sound correspondences and the identification of words through decoding or sight word recognition. In this case, sight word recognition would come under the latter heading, instead of the separate heading Sight Word Knowledge as in the Year 1 descriptor headings. It should be noted that in the current document sight word recognition at the Kindergarten level is placed under the descriptor heading Phonic and Word Knowledge, which is inconsistent with the placement of sight word knowledge at the Year 1 level. This inconsistency needs to be resolved.

In the United States and the United Kingdom, a distinction is made between teaching approaches based on analytic phonics and teaching approaches based on synthetic phonics. The draft Australian Curriculum makes no reference to the differences between these two approaches to the teaching of phonics. While recognising that the Australian Curriculum does not presume to tell teachers how to teach but only what to teach, it is suggested that some understanding of the differences between these two approaches would be useful to teachers,

... continued from page 3

JULY2010–BULLETIN

5

since the approach adopted has implications for the pace of teaching and the order in which different skills or strategies are taught. In the case of analytic phonics whole words are introduced and pronounced by the teacher, and the children’s attention is only subsequently drawn to letter-sound correspondences. Sounding out and blending is introduced only after children have learned to read words by sight, often only toward the end of the first year at school. Analytic phonics programs usually take up to three years to complete. In synthetic phonics programs sounding out and blending are taught from the beginning of the first year at school, before books are introduced, and the basic program can be completed in two to four months. Sight words are not introduced until children are familiar with letters and sounds, and have at least started to read words by blending and sounding out (Johnston and Watson, 2005).

Successful implementation of the curriculum, particularly as it relates to the teaching of beginning reading, will depend to a large extent on teacher training and professional development. Given the fact that relatively few teachers have been trained to teach phonics, and that there remains among many teachers a negative attitude toward the teaching of phonics, this may well prove to be a major barrier to improvement of reading instruction based on an effective phonics-based teaching program, as outlined in the curriculum.

ConclusionLDA welcomes the emphasis on the teaching of phonics in the Australian Curriculum, and believes that successful implementation of the curriculum as proposed could contribute to more effective teaching of initial reading, leading to improved reading standards and a reduction in the number of children experiencing reading difficulties. At the same time, we note some weaknesses in the Curriculum, particularly in relation to the clarity of the document and the level of guidance provided to teachers in implementing the curriculum. We would strongly recommend that implementation of the curriculum be accompanied by an extensive program of teacher professional development to ensure that the teachers responsible for teaching beginning reading are adequately trained, and have a good understanding of how children learn to read, and the strategies that have proved to be most effective in teaching beginning reading, and also that they are familiar with the theoretical and research

literature relating to the effective teaching of reading. We would also recommend that in implementing the curriculum, provision be made for the identification of students who are failing to progress, so that appropriate intervention can be applied at an early stage, with subsequent more intensive programs for students who fail to respond to initial intervention. Such a model could be based on the Response to Intervention model (RTI), which has now been widely adopted in the United States, or the three wave model as recommended by Sir Jim Rose in his recent report on Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties.

Lyndsey NickelsPresident, Learning Difficulties Australia

Professor and NHMRC Senior Research Fellow, Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science (MACCS), Institute of Human Cognition and Brain Sciences,

Macquarie University, Sydney

ReferencesCalifornia English-Language Arts Content Standards K to 4.

(1997). www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and

Literacy in History/Social Studies & Science (United States). (2010). www.corestandards.org/Standards/K12/

Johnston, R. and Watson, J. (2005) Evidence to the UK Parliament Select Committee on Education and Skills (UK Parliament Select Committee on Education and Skills Eighth Report). www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeduski/121/12106.htm

National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (NITL). (2005). Teaching Reading: Report and Recommendations. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature and its Implications for Reading Instruction. www.nationalreadingpanel.org/default.htm

Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading. Bristol: Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved April 12, 2006, from www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/rosereview/report.pdf

Rose, J. (2009). Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties. http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/00659-2009DOM-EN.pdf

CALLFORNOMINATIONStoLDACOUNCIL2010/2011SeeproceduresfornominationenclosedwiththisBulletin,andonthewebsiteatwww.ldaustralia.org

NominationscloseTuesday31August2010

BULLETIN–JULY2010

6

Miranda Devine

If you want to see a real Education Revolution, then you should go to the remote Cape York town of Aurukun, where Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson has imported a radical teaching program into a school in which more than half of the students were barely

reading at kindergarten level, if they could read at all. In terms of indigenous disadvantage, Aurukun was at rock bottom, with NAPLAN test results 70 per cent below the national benchmark, and every year the achievement gap widening.

The social dysfunction of the Cape’s most violent town, driven by gambling, drugs and alcohol, was being played out in the schoolyard. But Pearson says the children’s backgrounds has always been used by principals, teachers and education department bureaucrats as an “alibi for schooling failure’’. His philosophy is that if a student is at school and ready to learn, “a learning failure is a teaching failure’’. Already, after just one-and-a-half terms, the American-designed Direct Instruction program in which teachers deliver scripted lessons, according to a strictly prescribed, methodical program in literacy and mathematics, has surpassed even Pearson’s extraordinarily high hopes. It is a program on which he has staked his reputation, forced into being against the will of much of the educational establishment, and on which his legacy will be judged.

This week, the 17th week of the DI program, a Year 4 girl named Imani Tamwoy became the first in the school to have caught up to her grade level in reading. The Grade 5 to 7 students managed to master 76 per cent of the kindergarten program in the first 11 weeks, and the prep – or pre-kindy class of four-year olds – is already 40 per cent through the kindergarten language program.

‘’I’m surprised,’’ Pearson said on Thursday, during a visit with his five-year-old son Ngulunhdhul, aka Charlie, to Aurukun school, two hours by charter flight from his Cairns home. “I thought in Aurukun we’d have a hell of a time with behaviour… I thought Aurukun would be a special case, with the notoriety of the school and the community. But it hasn’t been, and the great thing is we’re doing it with your stock standard Education Queensland teacher. This is the biggest surprise and they’re doing a bloody great job.’’

Pearson travelled to Oregon last year to meet the architect of DI, Professor Siegfried Engelmann, and after a series of bruising negotiations, and entrenched opposition from some teachers and bureaucrats, installed a $7 million three-year trial in Aurukun and Coen schools at the beginning of the year, with the cautious support of the Queensland Education department.

The new principal, Geoff Higham, 59, drafted early this year to replace his less than enthusiastic predecessor, remembers how students in Years 8 and 9 used to bring iron bars to school. “The senior boys were out of control. They were reading at kindy level and they hated everything about school,’’ he says. “It’s hard to believe the transformation in just 15 or 16 weeks. “This is a wonderful system. All the children are put into ability groups so no one is failing. The teachers aren’t failing. The children aren’t failing… It’s a magnificent successful educational experiment.’’

Having taught in hardscrabble schools from Kenya to Thursday Island, the former Victorian describes himself as an old-fashioned “chalk and talk’’ teacher. His previous schools have been described as places where “even the grass sits up straight’’. He says DI accords with his educational philosophy, that every child can learn, given a disciplined routine and effective instruction. But even in his wildest dreams he hadn’t known how effective DI could be.

“I have no doubt the pupils will be at the national level in maths and English in three years’ time, and many children will be one, two or three years above that level.’’

Walking through the collection of modest white buildings nestled among stringybark and palm trees at the school of 250 pupils, you see everywhere, on teachers’ shirts, on banners and in classrooms, the motto Pearson has coined for his education revolution: “Get ready. Work Hard. Be Good.’’

In Sarah Travers’s kindy class, she wears a microphone around her neck to amplify her voice for children with chronic ear infections. It seems to work, because her 10 five-year-old students sit attentively on the floor, calling out sounds as she points to phonetic symbols in a book. At 1:45 pm at the tail end of a busy school week, their concentration and focus is remarkable.

In another classroom, children are sounding out words as the teacher clicks her fingers rhythmically to speed up their voices so that the sounds soon join up to become a fluent word.

Colleen Page, a 24-year-old teacher from the Sunshine Coast, in her third year at Aurukun, says the change DI has had on her pupils is marked. “They thrive on it. It’s really good to compare the last two years with this year… Previously the kids would be running around your classroom… not listening. Now they’re confident about participation in class.’’

She tells the story of the eight-year-old boy who came to her one morning proudly telling her how he had applied his previous day’s lesson. “Miss, I saw a frog, and I said, ‘You are an amphibian. You are born in water and raised on land.’’’

An essential part of the DI program is weekly testing and

Direct Instruction comes to Cape York

JULY2010–BULLETIN

7

data crunching. Every Thursday, 120 pages of detailed test scores and information about each student and class is faxed to a DI centre in North America to be analysed. The following Tuesday, the school leaders have a conference call with DI experts in Oregon about any problems identified.

For example, the data may pinpoint a deficit in a particular child’s understanding that came from a particular work sheet in a particular lesson that may have been taught six weeks earlier. The solution is prescribed and the process repeats itself.

The children seem to thrive on the organised routine. Even those difficult older children in Years 9 and 10, who have not gone away to boarding school like most of their peers, and who were expected to be too far behind to reap many rewards from DI, have responded in a way that is heartening and heartbreaking, as you consider countless lost opportunities.

The next stage in Pearson’s plan is to extend the school day to run from 8:30am to 4:45pm, with direct instruction

of basic skills until 2:15pm. Afternoons will be devoted to two crucial areas of learning: Club, which is physical activities such as Auskick, and Culture, which is devoted to learning their traditional Aboriginal culture and becoming literate in the first language of most Aurukun children, Wik-Mungkan.

With growing community delight in the new DI system at school, and the charismatic leadership of Pearson, there is a feeling of renewal in the air. Or, what Principal Higham calls a corner of light.

Miranda Devine is an Australian columnist and writer, who writes twice weekly for The Sydney Morning Herald.

She has an interest in education issues and was the media representative on the Committee for the National Inquiry

into the Teaching of Literacy (NITL). This article was first published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 29 May 2010

under the title ‘Scripted lessons start a classroom revival’, and is reprinted here with permission.

Email: mirandadevine@mac.com.

Dyslexia in the United Kingdom and the ‘dyslexia friendly’ quality mark Nola Firth, Centre for Adolescent Health, The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne

The Hon. Bill Shorten, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Affairs, last year initiated a National Dyslexia Forum. Recommendations to the government from this body were released in January (Dyslexia Working

Party, 2010). They included adoption in Australia of the ‘dyslexia friendly’ school model that is now well established in the United Kingdom. The privilege of receiving a Churchill Fellowship gave me the opportunity to visit some of these ‘dyslexia friendly’ schools and also to experience the environment in which this initiative has grown. (For a complete copy of this report, see www.churchilltrust.com.au/fellows/reports/).

As in Australia, specific categories of disability are not included in the disability discrimination legislation in the UK. However specific learning disabilities and dyslexia are named in the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice which is issued under the Education Act 1993. While not in as strong a legal position as in the United States or Canada where specific learning disabilities are explicitly included in the disability discrimination legislation, parents in the UK do have some power to ensure their children’s specific learning disabilities/dyslexia needs are catered for.

The phenomenon of specific learning disabilities and dyslexia are therefore officially accepted and included

in the UK. For example in Scotland, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education has published a report Education for Learners with Dyslexia, and in England the Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) has published a DVD entitled: Inclusion Development Programme Primary/Secondary: Dyslexia and Speech, Language and Communication Needs. Legal outcomes interpreting disability discrimination legislation have also now established in the UK that employers, especially large scale employers, are responsible for being dyslexia aware and responding to employee needs even if the employee is unaware they have dyslexia. Employers need to provide ‘reasonable adjustments’ that may include dyslexia awareness training for staff, 25 per cent extra time for undertaking tests and/or technological aids. It has been established that the dyslexia does not have to be severe but does need to impede the employee. There are also businesses established that specialise in supporting workplaces to cater for employees who have dyslexia. Dyslexia Solutions, for example, provides workplace assessments, support and training (see www.dyslexiasolutionsltd.co.uk/workplace/workplace.html).

Further, the Rose Report released in September last year recommended the training of 4000 new teachers in dyslexia such that all schools have access to a specialist dyslexia trained teacher. This is now being implemented.

Continued on page 8 ...

BULLETIN–JULY2010

8

Compared to the situation here in Australia, there is thus acceptance of the phenomenon of specific learning disabilities and dyslexia in both schools and the workplace and an environment has been created that fosters inclusion and support.

The British Dyslexia Association and the ‘Dyslexia Friendly’ Quality MarkWithin this environment, the British Dyslexia Association provides many resources to support its vision of a society that enables people who have dyslexia to reach their full potential (see www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/). They include: teacher professional development that is recognised by government schools, research projects (for example, support for dyslexia in combination with learning English as a foreign language), an adult mentor scheme whereby people who have dyslexia support each other, hosting of an annual dyslexia awareness week, courses for employers to prepare them for their legal dyslexia awareness responsibility, information and assistance regarding IT support such as dyslexia focused use of text to speech and predictive typing software, and sale of dyslexia support resources. Examples of the latter include publication of an annual Employment and Dyslexia Handbook and publication of a guide for justice professionals. This booklet, The Good Practice Guide for Justice Professionals (Jameson, M., British Dyslexia Association, 2009) gives background information about dyslexia and how to recognise it, the disability and human rights legislation that requires ‘reasonable adjustments’, and the specific effects in situations involving the court procedure and environment. It indicates the need for training and awareness of staff, and client support such as assistance with form filling, optional access to an intermediary, access to use of written memory cues when speaking in court, early access to information, and use of text to speech technology.

‘Dyslexia Friendly’ Quality MarkThe British Dyslexia Association also provides ‘dyslexia friendly’ organisational accreditation for schools and other organisations. For example 14 departments of the Liverpool Council have undertaken this training and accreditation. A representative of one business, McManus HDR, told me that for their accreditation they had: “reduced and simplified recruitment forms, trained staff for awareness and support for those with dyslexia, used coloured paper to reduce glare, given written information ahead of time and on the web, modified the web for clear fonts and easy text to speech conversion, and ensured staff were in teams where they combined to use their strengths and support each other’s needs. Cost involved was reported as minimal.”

‘Dyslexia Friendly’ SchoolsThe British Dyslexia Association ‘Dyslexia Friendly’ Quality Mark accreditation is also awarded to schools that have been audited by the British Dyslexia Association and found to have policy and practice that support students who have dyslexia. The accreditation is held in high regard including by UK government bodies. For example in the Fermanagh County in Northern Ireland, participating schools were assisted by the Western Education and Library Board to prepare for their accreditation. Meeting the needs of students who have dyslexia is integral to a ‘dyslexia friendly’ school (see the ‘Dyslexia Friendly’ Quality Mark Schools Pack: www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/files/DFS%20pack%20English.pdf).

Four areas are assessed in the accreditation process. These are leadership and management, quality of learning, climate for learning, and partnership with parents, school governors and other stakeholders. Senior management in the school are required to engage staff who have received specialist dyslexia training, ensure school-wide dyslexia awareness, systematic dyslexia diagnosis, and regular monitoring of these students. Class teachers are expected to be aware of the needs (including emotional needs) and strengths of these individual students, and to use flexible teaching mediums and methods that ensure inclusion and individual student achievement. Examples of specific requirements include evidence that students are made aware of the source of their difficulty and their strengths, and that procedures are in place for induction of new staff into ‘dyslexia friendly’ practice. The model allows for local adaptation around the core requirements and each school is expected to undertake a detailed action plan and monitoring system. Accreditation costs approximately £1000 and re-accreditation every three years costs a little less. The model therefore is one of whole school change and ensures commitment and involvement of senior personnel. Such a model is well supported in the literature on effective school change (Firth et al., 2008).

I was privileged to visit two ‘dyslexia friendly’ schools in Northern Ireland that had achieved ‘dyslexia friendly’ status in 2007. These were Ballinamallard Primary School, Ballinamallard and St Pauls Primary School in Irvinstone. They were village schools serving 150 and 250 students respectively. All staff, including principals at both schools, spoke highly of the initiative. One principal remarked “it makes so much sense”. One of the teachers said the ‘dyslexia friendly’ model continued to be used after three years because “it works”. Teachers confidently demonstrated their ‘dyslexia friendly’ teaching. They noted that it was initially challenging to learn, but felt it was now normal practice. I was told in one school that literacy results had increased since their ‘dyslexia friendly’ initiative and that these results were higher than the Northern Ireland average. Students also enthusiastically described the ‘dyslexia friendly’ supports they received in their school. In these whole class discussions, students

... continued from page 7

JULY2010–BULLETIN

9

unselfconsciously identified themselves as having dyslexia.Staff in these schools had received several days of

‘dyslexia friendly’ professional development provided by the Western Education and Library Board (WELB), followed by visits twice a term by a WELB facilitator. Based on my work in teacher professional development and school change (Firth et al., 2008), I believe that this model of substantial professional development and follow-up support was likely to be integral to the success of the program.

In one school, the dyslexia policy statement (a requirement of accreditation) explicitly required that students who have ‘dyslexic tendencies’ would: not be asked to read aloud, receive assessment that did not necessarily include spelling accuracy, and have access to alternative assessment methods and home work that took account of their situation. Dyslexia indicators and ‘dyslexia friendly’ practices were also included in the Staff Handbook of the school.

Parents were informed about dyslexia and ‘dyslexia friendly’ practice on dedicated parent evenings. They were encouraged to assist their child appropriately according to their individual needs (for example, scribing or reading for their child). Parents were also encouraged to see that engagement with their children in activities such as listening to an oral mind map presentation was highly beneficial for their education, even though there was no writing involved.

According to the requirements for accreditation, teachers were expected to know which of their students had dyslexia. Given limits per school in the UK on a formal statutory assessment for specific learning disabilities (including dyslexia) schools undertook internal assessment. For example in one of the schools, students were assessed by the special education teacher on normed reading and phonic analysis. Teachers were thus alerted to any students who were found to have ‘dyslexic tendencies’. Both schools used individualised, confidential pen portraits of the students either on separate sheets or amalgamated on the one class sheet for quick reference by teachers. These portraits included dyslexia or ‘dyslexic tendencies’ where applicable.

Literacy and numeracy were taught using several ability groups per class. For example, in one class during the numeracy session members of the class used one of two versions of a booklet depending on their level. There were also some withdrawal literacy and numeracy classes in Years 3 and 4, and some students who had specific learning disabilities received individual support for one hour per week. Keyword banks were also frequently used. For example, one teacher told me that to accommodate a child who had ‘dyslexic tendencies’ in her class she had the day before assisted his group to generate keywords for a forthcoming poem. This enabled him to independently write the poem the next day. Commonly used words were also on the wall, usually with pictures, and there were individual-sized laminated versions for students to collect

and use at their tables.Extensive use was made by teachers and students of

charts, mind maps and/or richly labelled pictures. Usually made by groups of students, these mind maps and rich pictures were accompanied by verbal presentations to their class, to other classes or to their parents (as homework). Roles were assigned in the groups according to students’ strengths or needs. Teachers spoke of students being more confident to speak to the whole class following the small group discussion work and use of the mind map for speaking cues. An emphasis in the school was thus on the importance of verbal expression as evidence of knowledge gained and of process rather than written output.

Clear criteria were conveyed to the students regarding assessment. Correct spelling was not necessarily included in the criterion. There was also a positive feedback structure of two positives and one correction (‘two stars and a wish’).

Other ‘dyslexia friendly’ class practices that I had the opportunity to see included: building students’ awareness of their use of a variety of learning modalities; use of pictures accompany writing (for example, on wall charts); use by teachers and students of a variety of presentation formats (for example, charts, role play, discussion, wall pictures, PowerPoint, or video); a word and picture summary of each day’s work sequence and an overall mind map of each unit of work; highlighting on the interactive

Continued on page 10 ...

I believe the ‘dyslexia friendly’ model could be very helpful in supporting students and adults who have dyslexia and specific learning disabilities in Australia.

BULLETIN–JULY2010

10

whiteboard and on handouts; and small individual whiteboards as a place for safe trial of spelling that could be immediately erased.

Peer support was also emphasised. It included extensive group work practice, mixed ability paired reading, and allocated ‘Study Buddies’, one of whom scribed or in other ways supported the other student. These partners were changed each term.

Resilience and self-esteem promotion (one of the accreditation requirements) was particularly evident in one of the schools where there was a dedicated ‘circle room’ that was used to discuss issues such as dealing with difficult feelings (for example, reading and then discussion of The Huge Bag of Worries story book). All classes were timetabled to use the room at least once a week. Students also used placement of traffic light symbols to silently indicate they had understood or needed more help, and on the wall in one classroom there was a cellophane bubble where students could place their name if they wanted five minutes alone with their class teacher.

I did not have an opportunity to visit a ‘dyslexia friendly’ secondary school but British Dyslexia Association staff told me of some ‘dyslexia friendly’ initiatives used at these schools. They included student access to information prior to class to allow for pre-reading and/or pre-tutoring (for example, on the school website), and use of equipment where written material could be photographed and immediately read aloud (currently on trial in several UK schools).

The ‘dyslexia friendly’ model thus catered for the learning styles of students who had specific learning disabilities, including dyslexia. However there also needed to be opportunity for more diagnosis and individualised support of students who had specific learning disabilities that was not limited by arbitrary numbers such as school population. The level of implementation of different aspects of the model appeared to vary somewhat from school to school and some resources were not as plentiful as they are in Australia. For example, there were two computers in each room, including the one used by the teacher, and this restricted use of software such as predictive spelling and text to speech.

I believe the ‘dyslexia friendly’ model could be very helpful in supporting students and adults who have dyslexia and specific learning disabilities in Australia. The model in both schools and businesses involves carefully focused policy and practice that accommodates the fact that some people will always have difficulty with print and that this should not limit their access to learning and participation in society. Many of the changes in the schools I visited were simple and relied only on teacher education. The ‘dyslexia friendly’ school model is also likely to be helpful for all students and I see no cultural or other reasons why these initiatives would not be transferable to Australian schools. State education department expectation that the model be

thoroughly implemented, as well as best practice teacher education and whole school implementation process, would be likely to be crucial in ensuring an effective uptake.

Australia is being left behind in its response to the issue of dyslexia/specific learning disabilities (SLD). The National Dyslexia Action Agenda recommendations presented in January 2010 to the Honourable Bill Shorten include legal recognition of the phenomenon, systematic, free diagnosis, and mandatory teacher education. All are likely to be essential prerequisites for the development of the dyslexia friendly schools and environments that are urgently needed here in Australia.

ReferencesDepartment for Education and Skills, 2001. Special

educational needs code of practice, 2008. Retrieved, March 24, 2010: www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/3724/SENCodeOfPractice.pdf.

Disability Act 2006. Retrieved April 6, 2010 www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/0B82C05270E27961CA25717000216104/$FILE/06-023a.doc.

Dyslexia working party. (2010). Helping people with dyslexia: a national agenda. Report to Hon. Bill Shorten, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services. Retrieved March 23, 2010 from www.ldaustralia.org/dyslexia_action_agenda_1.doc.

Firth, N., Butler, H., Drew S., Krelle A., Sheffield, J., Patton G., Tollit, M., Bond, L., and the beyondblue project management team. (2008). Implementing multi-level programs and approaches that address student wellbeing and connectedness: factoring in the needs of the schools. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion 1 (4), 14-24.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education. Education for learners with dyslexia. Retrieved March 24, 2010: www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/eflwd.html

Ironside, V. (2004). The huge bag of worries. Hodder Children’s Books, UK.

Jameson, M., British Dyslexia Association. (2009). Good practice guide for justice professionals. British Dyslexia Association and Developmental Adult Neuro-Diversity Association: Bracknell, UK.

Rose, J. (2009). Identifying and Teaching children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties. London: Department of Children, Schools and Families, p.10.

Dr Nola Firth is a Research Fellow at the Centre For Adolescent Health at the Royal Children’s Hospital and

Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Australia, and an Honorary Research Fellow at The University of Melbourne.

She is a Churchill Fellow (2009-10) and a member of the National Dyslexia Working Party reporting to the Hon.

Bill Shorten, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Affairs. Email: nola.firth@mcri.edu.au.

... continued from page 9

JULY2010–BULLETIN

11

Kristy Jones, Anne Castles and Saskia Kohnen, Macquarie University

Although most of us will be familiar with the term dyslexia, the different kinds, or subtypes, of developmental dyslexia that can affect children may not be as widely known. This is particularly true for some of the subtypes that

have only recently become the focus of research attention. In this article, we outline the symptoms that characterise some specific subtypes of dyslexia. It should be noted that it is unusual for a child to suffer from just one subtype of dyslexia. Although pure cases do exist, in most, but not all cases, children with developmental dyslexia will show symptoms associated with more than one subtype.

Before we describe the different subtypes of reading disorders, we will outline the set of processing abilities children need to acquire to become proficient readers. In order to conceptualise the complex cognitive processes involved in reading, we rely on dual route theory (the version of the theory used in this paper is based on Friedmann, Kerbel & Shvimer, in press; see Figure 1). According to this theory, there are various processing steps that take place from initially seeing a written word to reading it aloud or comprehending its meaning. The initial set of processes are summarised as visual orthographic analysis. There are three functions to visual orthographic analysis. Firstly, letter identification takes place, which involves recognising what is seen as a series of letters, not numbers or symbols. Secondly, letter position within a word is encoded so that

words like pat and tap can be distinguished from each other. Lastly when more than a single word is being read, letter-word binding occurs, such that the letters of each word are correctly associated with the word they appear in, and not another one. For example, in order to read the two words ‘tall walk’ correctly, the letters T A L L need to be associated with the first word and the letters W A L K with the second word. If the association process goes wrong, a reading error such as ‘wall talk’ may occur.

The word is then further processed via two different routes. The type of word being read predicts which route will be successful in producing the correct response. Regular words (for example, cat, hut, pet) and words (or nonwords) that a child has never come across before can be sounded out phonetically via the letter-sound rules, along the so-called nonlexical route. However, for irregular words (for example, friend, yacht), which cannot be sounded out phonetically, written word recognition of individual whole words needs to occur before access to word meanings and spoken word production can take place. This is the whole word or lexical route. In the descriptions below of various subtypes of dyslexia, you will begin to see how different processing steps are lacking, or not working to a sufficient level, in these children. We will begin by describing some of the more well-known subtypes before moving on to subtypes that are less familiar.

Phonological dyslexiaChildren with phonological dyslexia show difficulties reading nonwords and unfamiliar words. When sounding out, incorrect letter-sound correspondences are used (for example, ‘uh’ for the letter A), producing an incorrect word (for example, reading cat as ‘cut’). Often, nonwords are misread as similar looking words (for example, reading blick as ‘blink’). Additionally, with this subtype there can be a tendency to leave off or replace the ending of a word. The consequence of this is sometimes a morphological error, meaning the suffix of the word is said incorrectly (for example, runs read as ‘run’). In relation to dual route theory, it would seem that reading along the non-lexical route is impaired in these children as letter-sound correspondences are inefficient, but the lexical route is functioning well. This explains why a pure phonologically dyslexic reader is typically able to read sight-words to a normal or high level. To identify phonological dyslexia, it is best to test nonword reading because in order to read a nonword correctly, the nonlexical route must be used. Since phonological dyslexics are better at reading words, their reading ability may be

Subtypes of developmental dyslexia and the Dual Route Model

Continued on page 12...

Fig. 1. Dual Route Model (based on Friedmann et al. in press)

BULLETIN–JULY2010

12

overestimated if assessed using a word reading test. Children with phonological dyslexia will often also perform poorly on tasks involving rhyme judgement, phoneme deletion, blending and sound categorisation (Rowse & Wilshire, 2007).

Surface dyslexiaChildren with this subtype of dyslexia demonstrate a difficulty in reading out loud irregular words – those that do not follow letter-sound rules. Take the example of the word ‘iron’. If this word was to be read aloud phonetically, the letter ‘r’ would be pronounced, giving it the spoken output of ‘i-ron’ rather then ‘i-un’. These are the kinds of errors that children with surface dyslexia make. In contrast to phonological dyslexia, those with surface dyslexia sound out nonwords and regular words to a competent level. Within the dual route theory, the reading behaviour of children with surface dyslexia suggests that they are unable to access sight-words using written-word recognition on the lexical route, or they have fewer representations of written words in their memories. One reason why a child may have surface dyslexia is that their ability to form and maintain visual representations of written words is deficient (Castles & Coltheart, 1996; Di Betta & Romani, 2006). As these children are not able to read successfully via the lexical pathway, they resort to the non-lexical pathway, which is working normally. Children with surface dyslexia can be identified by asking them to read irregular words. The Castles and Coltheart Reading Test (Castles et al., 2009) allows identification of both surface and phonological dyslexia since it contains both irregular words and nonwords.

Poor comprehenders Poor comprehenders have difficulty understanding what they are reading (Nation & Snowling, 1998). These children often show normal reading accuracy and even fluency, yet when they are asked questions about what they have read, they are unable to answer, or answer incorrectly. Within dual route theory, this subtype would be said to have difficulties in the word meanings component. They have poor understanding of the meanings of words, and this will be evident in their reading comprehension and also in other tests of comprehension such as oral vocabulary tests. Poor reading comprehension may also exacerbate vocabulary and general knowledge impairments, as these skills will not be enhanced through reading (Nation & Snowling, 1998). This type of reading problem may be difficult to identify in a classroom environment, as poor comprehenders may not demonstrate any lack of reading fluency or accuracy. However, poor comprehenders can be identified by administering a reading comprehension test (for example, Neale Assessment of Reading Ability, 1999) where they will show normal reading accuracy and impaired reading comprehension.

HyperlexiaChildren with hyperlexia read words very accurately, often well beyond the level that would be expected for their age and cognitive level, but do not understand much of what they are reading. Although similar to children who are poor comprehenders, those who present with hyperlexia typically suffer from an intellectual delay, or have been diagnosed with autism or Asperger’s syndrome (Castles, et. al, in press; Atkin & Lorch, 2006; Nation, 1999). Children with hyperlexia may display a range of other cognitive impairments, including impaired oral language and low nonverbal intelligence (although this is very variable amongst different cases). Often they demonstrate an obsession with written text from a very young age. In terms of dual route theory, we would once again locate the deficit in this subtype of dyslexia at the level of word meanings, and once again it can be identified by administering tests that have separate measures of reading accuracy and reading comprehension such as the Neale Assessment of Reading Ability (1999).

Letter position dyslexiaChildren with letter position dyslexia have difficulty with, or are unable to differentiate between, words which contain transposed letters, such as ‘board’ and ‘broad’ (Friedmann & Gvion, 2001; Friedmann & Rahamin, 2007). In terms of dual route theory, it would seem that the letters have been identified correctly by the child, but that the correct letter position has not been identified. Using the example of ‘board’, the letters ‘o’ and ‘r’ are processed in the wrong position, resulting in an incorrect word (‘broad’) being accessed during written-word recognition. While clinicians report that letter transposition errors occur commonly in their poor readers (especially for ‘was’ and ‘saw’), there is no published case of pure letter position dyslexia in any language but Hebrew. It is possible that this is due to the fact that most reading tests contain too few words with possible migrations (such as there/three) to elicit letter-position errors. To test for letter position dyslexia, it is therefore best to present children with these kinds of migratable words to read aloud. Nonsense words that make a word if a letter is transposed can also be used (for example, wrod, which the child may read as ‘word’).

Attentional dyslexiaChildren with attentional dyslexia are better at sounding out single letters than reading single words, and they are better at reading single words than reading sentences. There is reason to believe that when a child with attentional dyslexia is presented with a sentence, they are unable to narrow their attention to the individual words, which may result in the omission of letters, so ‘sport spell’ is read as ‘sort spell’, or there is letter intrusion so ‘fleece feet’ is read as ‘fleece fleet’ (see Friedmann, et al., in press, for more details on error types). Possibly due to the focus on letter-sound rule acquisition and a paucity of research on the earlier

... continued from page 11

JULY2010–BULLETIN

13

processing components (see Figure 1), there are currently no reported developmental attentional dyslexia cases in English. Since it is thought that a letter-word binding deficit means that letters migrate between words, this type of dyslexia would be best assessed by presenting pairs of words such as the above to be read aloud, and looking for evidence of errors due to migrations occurring between the words (Friedmann et al., in press).

Summary and directions for treatmentIn summary, we have presented here some very brief descriptions of different subtypes of dyslexia, and have provided suggestions about how to identify these disorders in a school or clinical setting. We emphasise again that pure cases are rare. However, familiarity with the subtypes in their pure form provides a good basis for diagnosing more complex, mixed cases of developmental dyslexia, as the link between children’s reading behaviours and deficits in particular processes in reading are transparent. This, in turn, provides a good basis for developing targeted treatment programs for children with both pure and complex reading disorders.

Treatment for the various subtypes of dyslexia ranges from, but is not limited to, re-training letter-sound correspondences for children with phonological dyslexia (for example, Brunsdon, et al., 2002a); irregular word flashcard training for children with surface dyslexia (for example, Doctor & Broom, 1996; Rowse & Wilshire, 2007); and the use of word-tracking for children with letter-position dyslexia or attentional dyslexia (for example, Friedmann, et al., in press; Friedmann & Rahamin, 2007). However, it is important to ensure a detailed assessment precedes treatment and that treatment effects are monitored closely, because response to treatment varies between children and depends on the exact nature of the difficulty (Coltheart & Kohnen, 2010). We hope that the background on dyslexia subtypes provided here will assist teachers and clinicians in this process.

ReferencesAtkin, K. & Lorch, M. P. (2006). Hyperlexia in a 4-year-

old boy with Autistic Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Neurolingustics, 19, 253-269.

Brunsdon, R. K., Hannan, T. J., Coltheart, M., & Nickels, L. (2002a). Treatment of lexical processing in mixed dyslexia: a case study. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 12, 385-418.

Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (1996). Cognitive correlates of developmenta surface dyslexia: a single case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 25-50.

Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Larsen, L., Jones, P., Saunders, S. & McArthur, G. (2009). Assessing the basic components of reading: A revision of the Castles and Coltheart test with new norms. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 14, 67-88.

Castles, A., Crichton, A. & Prior, M. (in press). Developmental disassociations between lexical reading and comprehension:

Evidence from two cases of hyperlexia. Cortex.Coltheart, M., & Byng, S. (1989). A treatment for surface

dyslexia. In: X Seron, G Deloche (Eds), Approaches in Neuropsychological Rehabilitation (pp. 159-174). NJ: LEA.

Coltheart, M., & Kohnen, S. (in press). Acquired and developmental disorders of reading and spelling. In M. Faust (ed.), Neuropsychology of language: Advances in the neural substrates of language: Towards a synthesis of basic sciences and clinical research. Blackwell Publishers.

Friedmann, N., & Gvion, A. (2001). Letter Position Dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18, 673-696.

Friedmann, N., Kerbel, N. & Shvimer, L. (in press). Developmental attentional dyslexia. Cortex

Friedmann, N., & Nachman-Katz, I.(2004). Developmental neglect dyslexia in a Hebrew-speaking child. Cortex, 40, 301-313.

Friedmann, N., & Rahamim, E. (2007). Developmental letter position dyslexia. Journal of Neuropsychology, 1, 201-236.

Haywood, M., & Coltheart., M. (2000). Neglect Dyslexia and the Early Stages of Visual Word Recognition. Neurocase, 6, 33-44.

Nation, K. (1999). Reading skills in hyperlexia: a developmental perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 338-355.

Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Individual Differences in Contextual Facilitation: Evidence from Dyslexia and Poor Reading Comprehension. Child Development, 69, 996-1011.

Neale, M. (1999). Neale analysis of reading ability (3rd edition of Australian Standardisation ed.). Melbourne: ACER Press.

Rowse, H. J., & Wilshire, C. E. (2007). Comparision of phonological and whole-word treatments for two contrasting cases of developmental dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 817-842.

Saffran, E. M. (1996). ‘Attentional Dyslexia’ in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Case Study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 205-228.

Stuart, M., & Howard. D.(1995). KJ: A Developmental Deep Dyslexic. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 793-824.

Temple, C. M. (2006). Developmental and acquired dylexias. Cortex, 42, 898-910.

Weekes, B. & Coltheart, M. (1996). Surface dyslexia and surface dysgraphia: Treatment studies and their theoretical implications. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 277-315.

Kristy Jones is a Research Assistant at the Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science (MACCS) working on a large

training study of children with reading difficulties. Professor Anne Castles is currently Director of MACCS and has been exploring different types of reading difficulties in children for over 20 years. She is a member of the LDA Council. Dr

Saskia Kohnen is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at MACCS and investigates the effects of different types of training on developmental dyslexias and dysgraphias. In 2009, she was

awarded the LDA Tertiary Student Award.

BULLETIN–JULY2010

14

Linda Siegel, University of British Columbia

Larry, at age eight, received a score of 78 on an IQ test. This score is in approximately the bottom 10 per cent of the population. He was placed in a class for mentally retarded children and remained in classes for the mentally retarded until age 14. I

tested him at 34, when he was enrolled in a graduate program in a major Canadian university after completing a BA in psychology with an A average. Throughout his school career, Larry had great difficulty in learning to read, spell, write, and do arithmetic calculations. When tested at age 34, his IQ score was 119, well above average and better than about 85 per cent of the population. However, he still had significant problems with reading and spelling. He also had difficulties on short-term memory tasks and had occasional difficulty with verb tenses and finding the right word when speaking. Larry at age 34 displayed a profile of a dyslexic individual; yet at age eight he was labelled as mentally retarded.

The case of Larry is a very dramatic example of the consequences of using an IQ test score as part of the definition of a reading disability. At age eight, Larry had dyslexia but, instead, was labelled as mentally retarded. Larry was fortunate enough to have a very determined personality and very supportive parents who fought for his rights to be educated.

This case is a real one. Fortunately, it has a happy ending, but for many children with genuine learning problems the ending is not university or graduate school but jail, alcohol and drug abuse, and/or suicide. Larry’s supportive environment did not prevent or cure his reading disability; his reading problem remained throughout his schooling and into adulthood. However, his environment probably prevented Larry from developing the serious social problems that are often a consequence of an undetected and untreated learning disability. Is Larry a rare exception? No. Today a child with poor reading skills and an IQ of 78 would be labelled “developmentally delayed”, “mentally retarded” or a “slow learner”, or said to have a “general learning disability”. They would not be recognised as “reading disabled” or “dyslexic”, or as having a specific learning disability, and would not receive intensive help with reading because it would be argued, incorrectly, that we should not expect better reading from an individual with this IQ level. Unfortunately, children with lower IQ scores who show signs of severe reading problems are barred from getting help for their problem, even today.

The myth of intelligenceIn the early 1960s when the idea of learning disabilities first developed, it was important to show that people who were struggling with reading or mathematics were intelligent enough

to learn to read or do mathematics. So the solution was the IQ test to prove that they were capable of learning. They had to score above a certain level, although what that level was varied from place to place.

Although the idea of demonstrating that people who had learning disabilities were intelligent enough to learn was initially an important one, this idea developed into an obsession. It is hard to say exactly when we started on this slippery slope of IQ worship, but perhaps it was with the original idea that was proposed when the term learning disabilities was invented. To differentiate people with learning problems from those with serious mental handicaps, the profession specified that someone with a learning disability had to be of at least average intelligence. This requirement was quite reasonable at the time. However, other problems soon became evident.

What is intelligence? At first, the answer seems to be simple. Intelligence is what the IQ test measures. But the IQ test measures a limited number of skills, including memory for numbers, mental arithmetic, fine motor coordination, and the ability to define words. Humans have a wide range of skills and some psychologists, such as Howard Gardner, have always insisted that we should think about intelligence not as a single construct but as composed of many different skills. Some people are good at mechanical skills and can fix a broken car, others can draw well, and some can define obscure words. Which is the real intelligence?

People assume that the IQ test measures intelligence. The point is that we do not have an absolute standard of intelligence. Our concept of intelligence as measured by the IQ test is that we have an “intelligence” of a certain level compared to other people. IQ is always in comparison to others; there is no absolute standard for intelligence. There is no part of the brain in which resides the mythical entity called intelligence and no blood test or X-ray that can tell a person’s intelligence. Intelligence is an artificial construct, a product of the imagination of the test constructors.

The IQ score is supposedly a measure of “potential”. The concept of potential means that this score predicts what you are capable of. Often educational institutions specify that an IQ test score that is more than three years old is not valid and the person must be retested. This is the ultimate absurdity. If the IQ score is an indication of potential, then why would it change?

We assume that we know what intelligence is and we are then locked into a vicious cycle. Intelligence is what the IQ measures and the IQ is valid because it measures intelligence. Somehow we lost sight of the top of the hill and we failed to define and conceptualise intelligence. To understand how intelligence is defined, we need to examine the intelligence test. For example, intelligence tests typically ask questions about the definition of words, such as pusillanimous or terpsichorean. These words are not the real ones used on the test because we are not allowed

Why IQ is irrelevant to the diagnosis of learning disabilities

JULY2010–BULLETIN

15

to reveal the questions on the IQ test. The argument is that no one but the testers can know the questions on the IQ test. But if IQ is supposed to measure some sort of innate potential, then why would the potential change? Why does it matter if you know the questions beforehand? In the case of testing your vocabulary, if you knew the words before taking the test and if you looked up their meanings and answered correctly on the test, then you would show that you are capable of learning. If you give the correct answer to these words (and others), you are considered more intelligent than someone who does not know as many words. But it could also mean that you do not know the particular words on the test, and if some other words had been used you would have magically been more intelligent.

In the 1980s we got stuck in the quicksand at the bottom of the hill. The IQ became a godlike or mythical deity to whom the field worshipped. In the ultimate expression of this worship, IQ became incorporated in a mathematical equation. Learning disabilities were reduced to a simple equation. The IQ score became the basis of what is called the discrepancy definition of learning disabilities. A learning disability occurs when the IQ score is much higher than the reading (or arithmetic) score. This is called the discrepancy definition of a learning disability. One of the criteria for the existence of a learning disability is the presence of a discrepancy between IQ test score and achievement test score.

If there was no discrepancy, the student was considered to be a low achiever rather than a student with a learning disability. It was assumed that low achievers would never amount to much, and so they did not receive help for their problems. Here the LD profession took the wrong turn on the garden path and landed in the quicksand. And we are still paying a very high price for this wrong turn.

There are studies that show that there is no reason to require that there be a discrepancy between an IQ score and a reading score for a student to be considered learning disabled. I compared two groups of children who had low reading scores, but one group had reading scores that were significantly lower than those that were predicted by their IQ scores, traditionally called dyslexic, and the other group had low reading scores but these reading scores were not significantly lower than would be predicted by their IQ scores, traditionally called poor readers. On a variety of reading and spelling tests, I found that there were no differences between these two groups. In other words, there is no need to use IQ scores to predict the difference between the children traditionally called dyslexic, and those who have equally poor achievement but also have lower IQ scores (the low achievers). I found exactly the same results in a study of adults with reading disabilities. The reading disabled group was quite homogeneous in relation to reading related skills and administering an IQ test would not provide useful information about performance differences on reading related tasks. These findings suggest that there is no need to use IQ tests to determine who is learning disabled. We need to use only achievement tests.

One of the major reasons that we are still failing to identify learning disabilities is the preoccupation with testing that dominates the field. In order for a child to be identified and treated by a school system, there is usually an intensive testing

session. Typically, there is a long wait, often as long as two years, which is a very long time to wait if you are an eight-year-old having problems with reading. Usually an IQ test is required, in spite of the evidence that it is really not necessary in the definitional process and that it does not guide remediation in any meaningful way. We have made the identification process too time consuming and irrelevant to the educational needs of the child or adult.

The most telling argument against IQ scores is that they do not predict the ability to benefit from remediation. In a recent comprehensive review of the literature, Stuebing, Barth, Molfese, Weiss, and Fletcher (2009) showed that IQ does not predict the ability to benefit from remediation.

One of the difficulties with the excessive reliance on psychoeducational testing is that remediation is often neglected. That is, there is no attempt to relate the test scores to what educational methods and strategies might be used to help the child. Hopefully, the system will encourage the development of specific and detailed assessment of academic skills that will provide useful clues about how to provide remediation for a person with learning problems.

Out of the quicksand?After hitting bottom, we began the climb upward. In a recent call for research, the U.S. government acknowledged that we do not need the discrepancy definition. However, in many official definitions of a learning disability, the discrepancy definition is still used. Unfortunately, people with difficulties in reading or mathematics who also have lower IQ scores, even if these IQ scores are not very low, do not get help even today. The solution is to abandon the IQ test and just use low achievement as a measure of a learning disability. Obviously if a child is seriously delayed or has a condition such as Down Syndrome or autistic spectrum disorder or hearing or visual impairment, there are problems other than low achievement in reading and mathematics. However, the vast majority of individuals with difficulties in reading and mathematics would benefit from intervention, whatever their IQ score.

ReferenceStuebing, K.K., Barth, A.E., Molfese, P.J. Weiss, B. and Fletcher,

J.M. (2009). IQ is not strongly related to response to reading instruction: A meta-analytic interpretation. Exceptional Children, 76, 31-53.

Linda Siegel is Professor of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education at the University of British

Columbia, and is also President of the Division for Learning Disabilities (DLD) of the Council for Exceptional Children (to

June 2010). She has conducted extensive studies of dyslexia and other learning disabilities as well as cognitive and language

development. She was awarded the 2010 Canadian Psychological Association Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Lifetime

Contributions to Canadian Psychology. Email: linda.siegel@ubc.ca.

BULLETIN–JULY2010

16

My work at Tintern began in 1980, when I was appointed as a part-time counsellor in the Junior School. I arrived at the school with some knowledge of learning problems as I had worked with children with a range of

learning difficulties as well as those with particular disabilities such as autism, language disorder, intellectual disability, and hearing and vision impairment.

As well as counselling, my job included assisting teachers with the children experiencing problems with their learning and in particular with literacy. The Head of the Junior School, Betty Watson, was a person who understood the importance of all aspects of a child’s development. Robustly holding out against the new wave of immersion learning, she maintained a belief in the importance of teaching basic skills to children. My work with Mrs Watson was the beginning of a very long commitment to the area of student learning at Tintern. Three years later the scope of the position grew and I extended my work into the senior school.

In 1982 a new Principal, Sylvia Walton, was appointed. Her arrival at Tintern coincided with the general educational mood of the times for schools to provide appropriate education for all students, regardless of academic ability.

In 1985 in response to a memo to schools to participate in the State Government’s Participation and Equity Program (PEP), Mrs Walton asked staff for suggestions as to how Tintern could be part of this program. Having worked as a psychologist in the state school system, I had observed the enormous difficulties experienced by students with language disorder and the lack of appropriate services for such students. I put up my hand and suggested that Tintern could provide a special facility for students with this disability. This idea was taken seriously by the Principal and the School Council and led to Tintern applying for and receiving a grant through the

PEP Program. This grant enabled us to research the proposal very thoroughly in Australia and overseas. The result was the philosophical and financial commitment of the School Council to the establishment of a unit offering specialised teaching for students with specific language disorder.

The unit was originally known as The Communications Disorder Unit. It opened in 1987, with a full-time special education teacher, a half-time speech pathologist and four students, one of whom was in the secondary school. A government grant for units attached to regular schools supplemented the school’s contribution for a number of years until the basis of funding for students with disabilities changed. Subsequently students were funded on an individual basis. By 1992, the name had been changed to Tyndyrn Language Support Unit (Tyndyrn being Welsh for Tintern) to reflect the nature of the education provided.

The opening of Tyndyrn coincided fortuitously with my appointment as head of the Tintern Junior and Middle Schools. I was then in a position of being able to support its development and promote its worth to the whole school.

We embarked on a number of specialised programs for the students attending Tyndyrn which we saw as vital in helping them, including intensive language therapy, work on phonemic awareness and the explicit teaching of phonics. Many strategies were employed such as the use of Paget Gorman signing, cued articulation, and the Compic system, to name but a few. As well as teaching the students, the special education staff had a responsibility to ensure that class teachers understood the nature of the learning difficulties experienced by these students and were provided with strategies to assist them differentiate the curriculum. Some time after the commencement of this facility, we decided that our program would be suitable for students with a variety of learning problems and therefore more students were able to

What makes a good school? A personal reflectionLyn Henshall, St Catherine’s School

On 28 January this year the MySchool website was launched, providing information about the performance of 10,000 schools across the country based on the National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) tests. On 1 May, The Weekend Australian published a listing of the top 100 primary schools and the top 100 secondary schools in reading and maths. Publication of school results on the MySchool website has generated a lot of heated debate. On the one hand is the argument that the results are unreliable, that comparisons between schools are unfair, and that the focus on a narrow range of skills will lead to a narrowing of the school curriculum and teaching to the test. On the other hand is the argument that the MySchool website provides the public and the profession with information that can be used productively to improve Australia’s schools, both by identifying schools that need more resources and, over time, identifying schools and programs that are more effective. Of the top 100 primary schools in reading, Tintern Girls Grammar, in Melbourne’s outer eastern suburbs, was ranked second. By coincidence, the 2009 LDA Bruce Wicking Award was awarded to Lyn Henshall for her work in initiating and developing programs for students with language and learning difficulties at Tintern, and subsequently at St Catherine’s. In this article, Lyn Henshall reflects on her work at Tintern, and the factors that contributed to the success of the programs that were developed over the period 1980 to 2006.

JULY2010–BULLETIN

17

benefit from the education provided. As the numbers of children grew, integration assistants

were employed and were an integral part of the department. In addition, private speech pathologists with particular expertise in language and literacy development became a very important part of the team. The department across the whole school was finally called Educational Support, although the name Tyndyrn continued to be used affectionately in the Tintern Junior School where it had begun. The numbers of students grew very quickly as the success of the program became known.

As the students moved into the Senior School, a separate department was created with its own special education teacher and/or speech pathologist and support staff using a model more suited to the secondary curriculum and timetable, but with the same philosophical commitment to ongoing skill development, sequential programs and explicit teaching.

At the same time that we were developing appropriate education for students with learning difficulties, the Tintern Junior School underwent a change as a sequential literacy program was put in place. I had long been an advocate of the teaching of phonemic awareness, the explicit teaching of phonics and the importance of students understanding the English alphabet. I could never understand why children were given what I considered inadequate tools to access their own oral and written language and why the teaching profession and the education faculties in our universities have always resisted looking at evidence-based practice and programs in the teaching of literacy.

Our special education teacher and I spent time investigating different approaches to the teaching of literacy and finally settled on using the Letterland program. This was initially trialled in Tyndyrn and as a result of its success, was introduced first in the Prep class and then extended to Years 1 and 2. Although Letterland is not a scripted program, the principles of explicit teaching were used in its implementation. Achieving such a big change was not particularly easy as teachers had to embrace a new philosophy and learn new ways of teaching, but the result was that Letterland was successfully implemented and became a real feature of the Junior School.

In a fairly short space of time, it became clear that we needed a program to take us beyond the early years. We had many children joining the school in the upper primary levels and due to our policy of testing new students, we understood their educational needs.

Around 1997 we embarked on using the Spalding Writing Road to Reading method, first trialling its use in Tyndyrn. Once it was established as a worthwhile program it was adopted as the sequential program for Years 3 to 6. Once again its passage was not an easy one as it involved a large amount of learning for staff, including time during the holidays! However, it was achieved and has been highly successful.

The simultaneous development of the Educational Support Department and the literacy programs ensured that the whole school was involved in the same method of teaching with

outstanding results. The education of the students was seen as the responsibility of all staff working in cooperation. Too often special education is regarded as something apart from the classroom and indeed the programs and practices can be different, which can lead to very poor outcomes for students. A highlight for me was when Southwood Boys Grammar (the boys’ campus of what became Tintern Schools) opened in 1999, it began with all the philosophical underpinnings and programs which had been developed on the girls campus. Included from the first day was an Educational Support Department reflecting the importance given to this area of education by the school.

Looking back over the years it has been interesting to reflect on what was achieved and how it was achieved. I believe it was due to the commitment of a group of people, both Educational Support staff and classroom teachers, all holding the same belief in how children learn and how they should be taught, all working in the same direction, all respectful of each other’s expertise, all eager to reflect on their own practice and willing to try something new, and all believing in the ability of all children to learn. It was my privilege to work with a wonderful group of professionals whose beneficiaries were the children in their care.

For the past two and a half years, I have been working at St Catherine’s School in Toorak, Melbourne and I have begun all over again! The school has welcomed the new focus of the secondary Educational Support Department and class teachers work with and take advice from the special education teacher and the speech pathologist, who together are responsible for the students. The Secondary English Department is supporting this direction and a number of teachers are undertaking professional development in the explicit teaching of phonics, comprehension and written expression.

The establishment of an Education Support Department was already underway in the primary school and is thriving. The primary school now has a sequential literacy approach in place based on evidence-based practice. We have a committed team working together and we are seeing the substantial gains being made by our students in both the primary and secondary schools. With the full support of the Principal and School Council, we all look forward to continuing this very important work.

Lyn Henshall is the Director of Student Wellbeing at St Catherine’s School in Toorak, Melbourne, and was previously

Head of the Junior and Middle Schools at Tintern and the inaugural head of the Southwood Junior School for two years.

For the last six years of her time at Tintern Schools, Lyn was Vice-Principal, Student and Family Welfare, a role which

included overseeing all programs which catered for students with specific learning needs on both campuses of the school.

She is the recipient of the 2009 LDA Bruce Wicking Award, awarded in recognition of her work in the establishment of innovative programs for the teaching of students with

language and learning difficulties. Email: lhenshall@stcatherines.net.au

BULLETIN–JULY2010

18

Consultant NewsOngoing registration of ConsultantsThere are still some Consultants who have not re-registered, including a few who say that they have not completed the requisite PD. We encourage those members to try to ‘catch up’ with extra PD over this year and remain as registered Consultants.

Applications for Consultant registrationWe welcome three new Consultant members in Victoria: Ian Hume in Hopper’s Crossing, Susan Tocker in East Bentleigh and Terea Pickford in Ivanhoe.

Referral ServiceThe source of referrals is always interesting. SPELD refers the highest number and the internet is the next highest source of referrals (see Elaine’s report for details). Elaine spends much time listening to parents unload their worries before being referred to about three (if possible) local (if possible) or other appropriate Consultants.

Weekend professional development The Term 2 PD seminar, ‘Teaching maths to students with LD’, was conducted by Cath Pearn, a lecturer at the University of Melbourne and experienced in working with students who have learning difficulties in maths. It was such a success that we are hoping she will return with more information next year. The Term 3 session will be a seminar conducted by Andrew Fildes, of the Andrew Dean Fildes Foundation for language and learning disabilities. The Term 4 session will be a demonstration of excellent new software for spelling, to be presented by Pat Minton and Mary Delahunty.

We had to find a new venue for Term 2 as we were unable to book International House for the Term 2 PD session. Having found SPELD available on Sundays, we have taken advantage of this, as it is slightly lower in cost and the location seems

to be suitable for everyone. Unfortunately it is only available on Sundays so we will continue to hold Saturday seminars at International House, when available, and we will try to offer alternative days where possible. Olivia Connelly and Joan Cooper will be coordinating these sessions from now on.

Remember to book well in advance to assist organisation of the event. No payments can be accepted on the day although you may still attend, just incurring a late booking fee of $10 if you have not booked and paid prior to the event. Booking forms are available on the website at ldaustalia.org.au. If you have problems downloading it, you can contact Kerrie at ldaquery@bigpond.net.au.

Zone groupsElaine McLeish has been gathering information on the Victorian Zones based on Rosemary Carter’s previous records. There are seven of these, geographically spread across metropolitan Melbourne, including one in Geelong. Zones vary in their arrangements of meeting time (evenings or daytime, week or weekend) and place (members homes, local café).

The leader of each Zone is now responsible for formal record-keeping of attendees and activities. A proposal to make relevant activities eligible for ‘Standards’ points for VIT registration has been proposed but needs more thorough investigation. Zone leaders are welcome to disseminate information to all LDA consultants about an activity, such as a particular speaker, to which others outside the zone may be able to attend.

WebsiteOlivia Connelly is keeping an eye on our section of the website and we have made a few amendments in the light of our own use.

Jan RobertsConvenor, Consultants Committee

Email: learningpathway@optusnet.com.au

Total number of enquiries to March this year is similar to 2009. SPELD continues to be the main source of referrals but email enquiries to me via

the LDA website are on the increase. Referrals from independent schools are declining, as compared with the same period last year. Some people are happy for me to give them possibilities by return email but I always suggest that they can contact me by phone if more information is required. It is certainly

quicker for me to do this and I assume that if they have come to me after looking at the website they will have gleaned what the Referral Service offers.

My main difficulties are the amount of time I spend talking to parents who I am fairly confident from the beginning won’t pursue the referral; the need to make mobile calls in the majority of cases and keeping track of the outcome of referrals when Consultants and parents don’t get back to me. I’ve thought about only giving details of

one Consultant at a time to help keep track but parents usually manage to extract more from me by promising to let me know the outcome. Only a few remember to do so. On average, roughly one enquiry in four proceeds to a referral payment.

I’m slowly getting to know the new Consultants. It’s fantastic having someone in Hoppers’ Crossing now because we’ve had a dearth of Consultants in the area for a long time, combined with an increasing demand.

Report from Victorian Referral Officer

JULY2010–BULLETIN

19

Summary of Referrals: January to March 2006 to 2010

Period 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

January 43 34 45 40 37

February 79 81 74 82 104

March 70 64 45 80 54

Total January to March 192 179 164 202 195

Source of Referrals: January to March 2009 and 2010

Source of ReferralsJan to Mar 2009

Jan to Mar 2010

SPELD 39 42

Independent Schools 19 9

Paediatricians 22 22

Psychologists 21 15

Word of Mouth 14 9

Consultants 14 11

Government schools 12 14

Used before 9 15

Agencies 9 4

Yellow pages 8 6

Royal Children’s Hospital 9 8

Internet 8 30

Optometrists 8 5

Audiologists 5 4

Speech pathologists 5 1

TOTAL 202 195

Referrals by Year Level: January to March 2009 and 2010

Year levelJan to Mar 2009

Jan to Mar 2010

Prep 4 3

Year 1 9 10

Year 2 16 21

Year 3 22 26

Year 4 31 21

Year 5 23 25

Year 6 21 15

Year 7 20 19

Year 8 10 10

Year 9 6 11

Year 10 11 9

VCE 14 17

Adult 15 8

Total for Primary 126 121

Total for Secondary 61 66

Total for Adult 15 8

TOTAL 202 195

The Consultants’ Policy Committee (CPC) has revamped the Referral Service flyers and will let Consultants know when they are available. These will be mailed to schools and other professionals in areas where we need more referrals. They will also be available for Consultants at our Professional Development sessions.

The CPC also discussed fees at our last meeting and an email has been

sent to Consultants informing them of the change from the current suggested minimum of $50 to $60 per hour for 2011. I always tell parents, when asked, that consultants operate their own private practice and so set their own fees, but as a guide LDA suggests a minimum fee of $50 per hour. There is such a wide range of fees and length of sessions that it is difficult to be as specific as some parents

would like. A further complication is that some Consultants offer group sessions. In some cases, Consultants are happy for me to give parents more specific details of their pricing and sessions.

Elaine McLeishReferral Officer Victoria

Ph: (03) 9482 1031Email: ehmcleish@iinet.net.au

Contacts Learning Difficulties Australia

PO Box 349Carlton South Vic 3053

Phone: (03) 9890 6138Fax: (03) 9890 6138Email: ldaquery@bigpond.net.auwww.ldaustralia.org

ABN: 26 615 758 577Reg: AOO137O6L. ISSN: 1321 - 3369

LDA Office and General Enquiries: Kerrie McMahon Ph/Fax: (03) 9890 6138

Consultant Enquiries: Jan Roberts Ph: (03) 9850 7465

Referral Service, Victoria: Elaine McLeish Ph: (03) 9482 1031

Deadline for next issue of LDA BULLETIN: 15 August 2010EDITORS: Molly de Lemos Email: delemos@pacific.net.au

Margaret Cameron Email: MCameron@adelaide.tabor.edu.au

Craig Wright Email: craig@understandingminds.com.au

Membership Application Form 2010Membership is for the period 1 January to 31 December 2010

Pro rata membership subscriptions are not available. The annual membership fee entitles members to four issues of the Bulletin and two issues of the Journal for the calendar year. Back issues are supplied to members joining during the year.

Name _______________________________________________________________________ Title ____________________(Individual membership)

Organisation ___________________________________________________________________________________________(Institutional membership)

Type of organisation _____________________________________________________________________________________(Indicate whether school, or if other institution, please describe nature of institution)

Name of contact person __________________________________________________________________________________(Institutional membership)

Address _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Email ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tel ___________________________________________________ Mobile ____________________________________________________

Degree/Qualification _____________________________________________________________________________________(Individual membership)

Current Occupation/Area of Interest _______________________________________________________________________________(Individual membership)

Membership Categories

Member $93.50 Consultant Member $148.50 (subject to accreditation)

Student Member $49.50 (student ID required) Institutional Member (includes schools) $165.00

Please find my cheque attached for $____________

Payments by EFT can be made to: BSB: 063 238 Acc. No: 1000 1271 Account Name: Learning Difficulties AustraliaWhen using EFT please include your name in the transfer information fields, and send completed application form to LDA by mail, fax or email, giving date and reference of EFT payment.or

Charge my VISA Mastercard

Card No Expiry ____ /____ / ____

Name on Card __________________________________________________________________________________________________

Signature _________________________________________________________________________________ Date ____ / ____ / ____

Please tick if a receipt is required

Send to LDA Subscriptions, PO Box 349, Carlton South Vic 3053 Fax: (03) 9890 6138 Email: ldaquery@bigpond.net.au

Articles and advertising in the Bulletin do not necessarily reflect the opinions or carry the endorsement of the Association. Requests to reprint articles from the Bulletin should be addressed to the Editor.