Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
The provision for supporting pupils with dyslexia ‘is often lacking’ (Rose,
2009). This essay will provide a definition of dyslexia and go into detail about
ways of identifying dyslexia in a child and the limitations of these approaches.
It will then compare the practice of two schools where I worked during my
school experiences and link with supporting children with dyslexia. This will
be done to explain where identification and support is often not good enough
in primary schools and to influence practice.
Tunmey and Greaney (2009, p.229) state that there is no internationally
agreed definition of Dyslexia or agreement on its cause. However Rose’s
(2009) definition is generally accepted across the United Kingdom (Dyslexia
Action, 2012).
Rose (2009) defines Dyslexia as a learning difficulty primarily affecting the
skills involved in accurate and fluent word reading and spelling. This is a
working definition providing ways to identify learners with dyslexia and then
offer interventions (Kelly and Phillips, 2011).
Whereas The British Dyslexia Association (2010, p.1) define dyslexia as a
learning difference, a combination of strengths and weaknesses which affects
the learning process in reading, spelling, writing and sometimes numeracy.
Dyslexic learners may also have accompanying weaknesses in short term
memory, sequencing and the speed at which they process information. These
are skills that everyone needs if they are to learn effectively in a busy
p. 1
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
classroom. This is a descriptive definition and concentrates on a set of
characteristics which are evident in dyslexic children (Kelly and Phillips, 2011).
Different definitions go into differing detail and explanations of dyslexia,
depending on their perception of which is most significant. Most, however,
agree dyslexia affects reading and spelling. This is where the first problem
with identifying and supporting dyslexia lies. My opinion is that for dyslexia to
be easily identified and supported there must be recognised international
definitions of the disability, without this definition, it is harder to identify and
support.
It is widely accepted that the earlier dyslexia is identified the more effective
interventions are, and give the greatest chance of dyslexic children ‘catching
up’ with their peers (Ott, 1997; Rose, 2009; Schnatschneider and Torgessen,
2004; Snowling 2013; Crombie and Reid, 2009). The Code of Practice states
the importance of early identification, assessment and provision for any child
who may have special educational needs cannot be over-emphasised (DfES,
2001).
Research suggests there are many methods of identifying dyslexia. Screening
tests done by educational psychologists are very costly to implement and
there is a wide range of data and assessments available to teachers that are
as effective (Ott, 1994; Snowling, 2013).
p. 2
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
Fawcett and Nicholson (1996, cited by Ott, 1994, Crombie and Reid, 2009)
devised tests for identifying whether children struggle with areas associated
with dyslexia. These tests were called the Dyslexia Early Screening Test
(DEST) for 4.5 to 6.5 year olds. The tests are administered on entering school
and aid early identification of dyslexia ensuring support can be in place early.
DEST involves a series of subtests to identify signs of the causes of dyslexia
and indicate if a child is ‘at risk’ of future problems (Simpson, Everatt, 2005).
If children are found to be ‘At Risk’ further testing from educational
psychologists is required. DEST was designed to be used by teachers because
it is cheap, quick and provides indicators of dyslexia (Crombie and Reid, 2009,
p.72). Simpson and Everatt (2005) contest this by saying the tests need to be
purchased at the cost of the school. They also argue that tests administered
to young children struggle to give an accurate reading, and that evidence
testing was proven on older children rather than at 4.5 years of age. I believe
DEST tests offer a realistic indicator for dyslexia and that if they predict
literacy difficulties and can be administered to all children then it is good for
schools and the children.
Response to Intervention (RTI) is an American approach to identifying
dyslexia. All children are screened and children who fall below a cut off point
are deemed to have a high probability of future struggle in education, and are
placed in an appropriate tier of the system. RTI monitors progress through a
programme of interventions, providing an alternative to screening and
assessment for dyslexia. Progress is monitored at tier 1 in regular classes, tier
p. 3
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
two involves small group based tutoring and tier 3 is 1:1 tailored tutoring,
with progress being monitored throughout with movement between tiers
(Snowling, 2013; Shapiro and Clemens, 2009; Crombie and Reid, 2009, p.73).
Blanket screening tests can be unreliable (Rose 2009, p.43) and a problem
with RTI is that it can produce false positives and negatives, meaning children
are placed in the wrong tier (Shapiro and Clemens 2009). Snowling (2013,
p.10) suggests using RTI when children are identified to have reading
difficulties and their response to intervention is measured as to whether they
need further diagnosis. RTI should be carried out in early years otherwise
children will be identified no earlier than traditional approaches (Crombie and
Reid 2009, p.73).
RTI is appropriate for American school systems and due to differences is not
transferable for the UK. Rose (2009) advocated a three wave teaching system
(not tiers of intervention) for identifying and supporting dyslexia in the UK,
which is very similar to RTI. Wave one requires high quality first teaching at
all times which is the cornerstone for helping dyslexic children (Rose, 2009,
Reid, 2005), where teachers adjust to suit the differing needs of their pupils
(BDA, 2010), monitor responses to phonics and use differing rates of progress
as indicators for literacy difficulties. Reviews of progress and further
investigation of difficulties are essential. He also points out that intervention
should not wait until diagnosis, and that intervention should be put in place
when it is noticed that a child is not responding at Wave one. Screening is
done through standardised reading and spelling tests to identify literacy
p. 4
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
difficulties. Wave two involves a more experienced literacy teacher and
SENCO to assess the child’s difficulties and their RTI; Children receive small
group interventions to help with their difficulties and their response is
assessed. Should a child continue to fail at Wave 2 it may be acknowledged
to parents that the child appears to have ‘dyslexia difficulties’ with no formal
identification? Wave 3 involves appropriately qualified teachers delivering an
individualised programme based on the child’s needs. Rose (2009) stated that
the best way to identify dyslexia is through monitoring progress, skills
assessment, statements of special educational needs and monitoring the
impact of interventions.
Problems associated with RTI can be applied to Rose’s approach and
therefore both will be evaluated with RTI being referenced. The major
problem with RTI is that it is valuable for prevention of literacy difficulties for
children, however, evidence suggests it cannot be used for early diagnosis of
dyslexia without further testing (Reynolds and Shaywitz, 2009), and RTI may
delay/prevent dyslexic children from the support they are entitled to whilst
they are failing which may affect their self-esteem (Glazzard, 2010). It can be
argued that if all children must be tested for RTI, then it is possible to blanket
test for dyslexia meaning that children are identified specifically as dyslexic
and receive targeted approaches to give them support. It takes time for
progress to be witnessed with RTI and with pressure on teachers to get
results this may prove to be a stumbling block without a diagnosis of dyslexia
(Shapiro and Clemens 2009). I believe these approaches rely heavily on the
p. 5
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
Wave (tier) one teaching being of high quality. If there is a failure at Wave
one, this leads to unnecessary increase of numbers at Waves two and three,
meaning that children who do not have SEN are moved into Wave two
unnecessarily. RTI works in supporting dyslexia after it has been identified,
however, it is very reliant on each stage being done correctly and on teachers
being involved and understanding the needs of their pupils, which should be
expected but is not always the case in practice. Snowling (2013, p. 11)
suggests that teacher assessment in schools, using data for RTI, is an
effective method for identifying dyslexia.
It is my belief that no one method alone is sufficient in identifying dyslexia,
Hale et al (2010) suggest that there is a need for another method in
identification of learning difficulties from RTI. It is my belief that an RTI
model combined with tests is the best method for identification and support
of dyslexia. Wave one is the most obvious initial identification pool with all
children being in school. However, after this my beliefs differ from a
traditional RTI approach. I believe all children should be tested for dyslexia at
wave one and those who appear to exhibit ‘at risk’ signs must be placed in
the appropriate level for their needs and have further testing. Children going
straight into wave two will not necessarily benefit or improve from wave two
interventions and this is delaying assistance and is therefore the major short
fall of RTI. The DEST provides a more concrete identification of needs that
can be tailored to children at Wave three. Whereas an RTI model can be
p. 6
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
implemented and benefit many children, it is my belief that we can help the
identification of dyslexia by implementing other methods in addition.
Other ways that help to identify dyslexia are Schools and parents working
together, which is essential (Rose, 2009; Reid, 2009). Teachers looking for
children in their class exhibiting dyslexia characteristics will aid in dyslexia
identification. The Year 1 Phonics screening test can be used as an indicator
of dyslexia (Dyslexia Action, 2012), due to phonological difficulties associated
with dyslexia. Progress monitoring is the most essential way of identifying
dyslexia (Ott, 1997; Rose, 2009; Schnatschneider and Torgessen, 2004;
Snowling 2013; Crombie and Reid, 2009). EYFS assessment can be used to
identify children at risk of educational difficulties (Snowling, 2013, p.11),
which is backed up by Rose (2009, p.44). Teachers should raise concerns
about a child with more experienced teachers or their SENCO when they
believe a child may have dyslexia. These, however, must be done alongside
interventions and assessments to effectively aid in the identification and
support of dyslexia.
None of these ways to identify Dyslexia provide an actual diagnosis; only
psychologists and specialist dyslexia teachers with a practising certificate can
provide diagnosis (Rose, p.53). Before that teachers can only say they exhibit
dyslexic tendencies. These specialists are called in if high quality teaching and
interventions are not effective. However when a child is labelled ‘at risk’ of
p. 7
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
dyslexia there should not be a delay in putting help in place; this prevents
further affecting pupils’ self-esteem (Rose, 2009, p.2; Snowling, 2013, p.12).
During my school placement I interviewed the SENCO’s from two schools
about their approach to dyslexia. School A does not focus on diagnosing
dyslexia specifically; the school does not like to label children and feel that it
is unfair to do so. Norwich (2009, p.186) supports this notion by stating that
Special Education Needs (SEN) is best supported and assisted by identifying
the needs of the child rather than labelling them as dyslexic. This means that
stating a child is dyslexic does nothing for them, teachers need to address
what their problems are and target assistance based on this. Macdonald
(2009, p.36) contradicts this by saying that dyslexia diagnosis improves selfesteem and can give increased confidence. He also explains that children may
have already been labelled as lazy, stupid or disruptive and diagnosis can end
this. Glazzard (2010, p.63) elaborates by saying that the label ‘dyslexia’
contributes significantly to pupils’ self-esteem, gives them ownership of the
label and helps to create a positive self-image. School B, however, diagnose
only when they feel it will benefit the child. Lauchlan and Boyle (2007) back
this approach, by stating that the label of dyslexia can lead to increased
funding streams and makes communicating problems easier for professionals.
It is my opinion that the label is more beneficial to a child because it gives
them an idea of why they struggle with their work, and opens up their rights
to funding and support and empowers the child to achieve. I feel that the
p. 8
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
label children often receive of being lazy, stupid or disruptive (Macdonald,
2009) is far more detrimental to children’s self-esteem than dyslexia; the label
in my opinion benefits the child.
Both schools buy in services when children exhibit dyslexic characteristics, the
services for school A putting strategies in place whereas school B’s services
do a comprehensive assessment in reading, writing and spelling and then
provide a dyslexic portfolio for assisting class teachers with the pupil in class.
This may suggest that school B is offering more support for their teachers,
however, school A put strategies in place with the agencies support and in
addition to this up skill staff through INSET ensuring high quality Wave One
teaching (Rose, 2009), as well as training for all staff involved with children
exhibiting dyslexic tendencies. In addition School A provides assistance to
small groups of SEN children, though this approach may be delaying or
preventing dyslexic children from having the specific support they require
(Reynolds and Shaywitz, 2009).
School B uses technology such as I-pad apps and it buys laptops if needed for
children to be able to produce better quality work. School B aims to increase
children’s typing speed which the BDA says increases quality and quantity of
work, thereby, taking away the problems of speed and handwriting (2013),
and have apps for children to dictate their work so as to not need to write,
taking away the stress and fear of failure associated with writing and aids
editing by hearing mistakes (Percival, 2013). Technology is a tool that can be
p. 9
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
used in the classroom to aid, support and overcome difficulties and barriers to
learning for dyslexic children and can mean a lifetime of success in writing
(BDA, 2013; Drysdale, 2009; Crivelli, 2013, cited in Percival, 2013; Ott, 2007).
There is a vast amount of technology available to support dyslexia (Peer and
Reid, 2005) and children can be taught to use ICT to increase their
performance and enhance their creativity (Ott, 2007). By using different
programs and removing previous barriers children then have confidence to
produce better work which creates independent learners, as when dyslexic
children have the tools necessary they can work independently (Onions, 2013,
cited in Percival, 2013). This is an area where school A is lacking and in my
opinion needs to look into assisting its children who are dyslexic, because
children who are not motivated by traditional teaching methods (i.e. dyslexic
children) often benefit from assistive technology (Nicolson, Fawcett and
Nicolson, 2000, p.203).
School A lower the teacher pupil ratios by employing two teaching assistants
(TA’s) in classes with SEN children, one who works with the whole class and
one to assist the SEN children. However, dyslexic students see working
exclusively with a TA as one of the worst practices in schools. Webster (2014)
also comments that working with TA’s too much also means that these
children miss out on quality time with the teacher affecting their education,
which leads to children becoming too reliant on the TA. Therefore, it is good
for school A to use teaching assistants, they must also be aware of the impact
on having them working too much with SEN children. School B could improve
p. 10
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
provision by using TA’s. Both schools offer help with spelling and using
mnemonics and tutoring, which is seen as one of the main problems with
dyslexia. School A provides professional development, which focuses on
addressing gaps in staff knowledge on dyslexia (Bagri, 2014; Rose, 2009,
p.82).
School A has three children exhibiting dyslexia tendencies whereas School B
state they have one child who is dyslexic who they are seeking a diagnosis,
but have no children with dyslexic tendencies. Approximately 10% of the
population are dyslexic (British Dyslexia Association, 2014) a school the size
of School A there would be approximately 80 pupils with Dyslexia to some
degree and there would be roughly 40 pupils with dyslexia to some degree in
School B. However it is acknowledged that dyslexia occurs on a continuum
and that many children have low level problems, or simply have learnt to
cope (Gallagher, Frith and Snowling, 2000). With that being said both schools
are far below the ten per cent level, meaning the likelihood is that there are
many dyslexic children going unnoticed, which is something that needs to be
addressed in their SEN practice.
Both school A and B offer the assistance to dyslexic children. However, school
A refusing to diagnose can leave some children at a disadvantage when
heading into secondary school, School B’s diagnosing when necessary helps a
child by giving them future opportunities and more benefits than just the
support they required at the time.
p. 11
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
Other ways teachers can support dyslexia in class, is by Multi-Sensory
teaching involving visual, auditory, kinaesthetic and tactile senses (the eyes,
ears, speech and fingers) (Ott, 1994, p.65). Dyslexic pupils respond best to
structured teaching, being in an environment where their teacher supports
and understands their needs (Reid, 2005; Snowling, 2013; Johnson, 2004)
and need to be encouraged to achieve independence (Reid, 2005 p.144).
Dyslexic pupils should receive Targeted Phonological skills with reading
interventions, by developing decoding skills proved to be the best method for
intervention (Snowling, 2013, p.12). Teaching programmes should target:
attention, listening, spoken language, fine motor skills, handwriting and
memory (Townsend, 2000, cited in Reid, 2005). Overlearning by using
systematic repetition in order for new knowledge and skills to become
automatic, working with dyslexic children between lessons helps them learn
(Rose, 2009, p.90). No intervention works for all children and it is therefore
essential to tailor intervention children’s specific needs (Snowling, 2013, p.12;
Reid, 2005).
It is clear from research that it is vital to identifying dyslexia early at schools
and that there are many different methods of identifying it. However, despite
it being so important for it to be identified, there is a lack in provision of
schools. This paper shows schools need to do more to identify dyslexia and
then give appropriate interventions. RTI, is a good starting point, however
leaves dyslexic children lacking the appropriate provision at waves one and
p. 12
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
two without identification. It is not appropriate to simply wait to see how
children respond before extra support is given as this will leave children
without specific support they require (Reynolds and Shaywitz, 2009). Schools
must identify dyslexia at the earliest possibility, if they are unhappy with
‘labelling’ the child they must identify children as potentially dyslexic and put
coping strategies in place (Stansfield, 2014), this therefore prevents a
dyslexic child falling behind their peers because children who fall behind early
in their school career tend to fall further behind over time (Siegel, 2014). My
conclusion therefore, is that schools need multiple methods to identify
dyslexia, and when a child is identified, they need to be receiving appropriate
support for their problems in class at wave one and through interventions at
waves two and three.
Therefore a whole school approach to dyslexia is required. A school culture
where failure is not acceptable, and that pupils cannot be allowed to leave
without appropriate basic skills; which means pupils are encouraged to
believe they can be the best (BDA, 2010). School wide Monitoring and
evaluation of teaching/ interventions and looking at what is being done to
support dyslexic children (Rose, 2009, p.98) is essential. Schools must have
access to a trained dyslexic teacher and a teacher with advanced skills of
teaching literacy either in an alliance or on staff (Rose, 2009). Schools should
establish a policy framework for the school by implementing whole-school
screening and monitoring for dyslexia (Reid, 2005, p.142) through DEST and
p. 13
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
RTI. Teachers and staff should be aware of difficulties associated with
dyslexia (Rose, 2009, p.82; BDA, 2010).
p. 14
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
Bibliography
Aberdeen City Council (ACC). (2011) Dyslexia Aberdeen City Council Dyslexia
Practice Guidelines. Available at:
http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/web/files/SchoolsColleges/dyslexia_guidlines
.pdf (Accessed 26 January 2014).
Australian Dyslexia Association. (2014). Identifying Dyslexia. Available at:
http://dyslexiaassociation.org.au/index.php?page=identifying-dyslexia
(Accessed 19 January 2014).
Australian Dyslexia Association. (2014). Could it be Dyslexia? Available at:
http://dyslexiaassociation.org.au/index.php?page=could-it-be-dyslexia-2
(Accessed 19 January 2014).
Bagri, S. (2014) Conversation with William Seabrook, 23 January.
British Dyslexia Association. (BDA) (2010) Dyslexia Friendly Schools Pack for
England. Available at:
http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/files/dfs_pack_English.pdf (Accessed: 14
January 2014)
British Dyslexia Association (BDA).(ND) Dyslexia Style Guide. Available at:
http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/about-dyslexia/further-information/dyslexiastyle-guide.html (Accessed: 26 January 2014).
British Dyslexia Association (BDA). (2013) Using Technology to Support
Dyslexic pupils. Available at: http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/files/Technologyfor-Literacy-2013.pdf (accessed: 19 January 2014).
Broomfield, H. and Combley, M. (2000) Overcoming Dyslexia: A Practical
Handbook for the Classroom. London: Whur Publishers Ltd.
Crombie, M. and Reid, G. (2009) ‘The role of early identification: Models from
research to practice’, in Reid, G (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Dyslexia.
Oxon: Routledge, PP.71-79.
Davis, R.D. (1992) 37 Common Characteristics of Dyslexia.
Available at: http://www.dyslexia.com/library/symptoms.htm
(Accessed: 29 January, 2014)
Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2001) Special
Educational Needs Code of Practice. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https
://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/0581 2001-SEN-CodeofPractice.pdf (Accessed: 29 January 2014).
p. 15
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
Drysdale, J. (2009) ‘Overcoming the barriers to literacy ’, in Reid, G
(ed.) The Routledge Companion to Dyslexia. Oxon: Routledge, PP.236-247.
Dyslexia Action. (2012) Dyslexia Still Matters. Egham: Dyslexia Institute
Limited.
Everatt, J. and Reid, G. (2009) ‘Dyslexia: An overview of recent research’, in
Reid, G (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Dyslexia. Oxon: Routledge, PP.321.
Gallagher, A. Frith, U. and Snowling, M. (2000) ‘Precursors of literacy delay
among children at genetic risk of dyslexia’, Journal of Child Psychology and
psychiatry, 41 (2), pp.203-213.
Glazzard, J. (2010) ‘Impact of dyslexia on pupil’s self-esteem’, British Journal
of Learning Support, 25 (2), pp.63-69.
Hale, J. (2010) ‘Critical issues in Response-to- intervention, comprehensive
evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An
expert white paper’, Learning Disability Quarterly, 33 (1), pp.223-236.
Hope, K. (ND) How teachers can accommodate the dyslexic student. Available
at: http://www.dyslexiavictoriaonline.com/howtecanacdy.html (accessed, 26
January 2014).
Inclusive technology. (2014) ICT and Specific learning disibilities and or
dyslexia, Available at: http://www.inclusive.co.uk/articles/ict-and-specificlearning-difficulties-and-or-dyslexia-a216 (accessed: 1 February 2014).
Johnson, M. (2004) ‘Dyslexia- Friendly teaching’, in in Thomson, M. (ed.)
Dyslexia- Perspectives for Classroom Practitioners. Glasgow: Bell & Bain Ltd,
pp.9-14.
Kaminski, J. (2012) 5 Early Warning Signs to Identifying Dyslexia. Available
at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpvaVje6oCk (Accessed: 19 January
2014).
Kelly, K. and Phillips, S. (2011) Teaching Literacy to Learners with Dyslexia A
Multi-sensory Approach. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Lauchlan, F. and Boyle, C. (2007) ‘Is the use of labels in special education
helpful?’, Support For Learning, 22 (1), pp.36-42.
Lyytinen, H. Ronimu, M. Alanko, A. Poikkeus, AM. And Taanila, M. (2007)
‘Early Identification of dyslexia and the use of computer game-based practice
to support reading acquisition’, Nordic Psychology, 59 (2), pp.109- 126.
p. 16
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
Macdonald, S. (2009) Towards a Sociology of Dyslexia. London: VDM
Publishing.
Norwich, B. (2009) ‘Dyslexia and inclusive education’, , in Reid, G (ed.) The
Routledge Companion to Dyslexia. Oxon: Routledge, pp.177-192.
Ott, P. (1997) How to Detect and Manage Dyslexia: A reference and Resource
Manual. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers.
Ott, P. (2007) Teaching Children with Dyslexia a Practical Guide. Oxon:
Routledge.
Peer, L. (2004) ‘Success for all- dyslexia-friendly schools’, in Thomson, M.
(ed.) Dyslexia- Perspectives for Classroom Practitioners. Glasgow: Bell & Bain
Ltd, pp.3-8.
Peer, L. (2009) ‘Dyslexia and glue ear: a stick educational problem’, in Reid, G
(ed.) The Routledge Companion to Dyslexia. Oxon: Routledge, pp.33-42.
Peer, L. and Reid, G. (2005) Introduction to Dyslexia, London: David Fulton
Publishers Ltd.
Percival, S. (2013) ‘Assistive tools’, Nasen Special, March 2013, p.45.
Reid, G. (2005) ‘Dyslexia’, Lewis, A. and Norwich, B. (eds.) Special Teaching
for Special Children? a pedagogies for inclusion, Berkshire: Open University
Press, pp.138-149.
Reynolds, C. and Shaywitz, S. (2009) ‘Response to Intervention: ready or
not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail, School Psychology Quarterly, 24
(2), pp. 1-19.
Rose, J. (2009) Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with
Dyslexia and Learning Difficulties. Available at:
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/14790/1/00659-2009DOM-EN.pdf (Accessed: 14 January
2014).
Shapiro, E. (2009) ‘A conceptual model for evaluating system effects of
response to intervention’, Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35 (2), pp.316.
Siegel, l. (2014) ‘ Early indentification and intervention to prevent reading
failure’, Carroll, J. and Saunders, K. (eds) The Dyslexia Handbook 2014,
Bracknell: The British Dyslexia Association, pp.107-112.
Simpson, J. and Everatt, J. (2005) ‘Reception Class predictors of literacy
skills’, British Journal of Educational Psycholody, 75, pp.171-188.
p. 17
Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.
Singleton, C. (2009) ‘visual stress and Dyslexia’, in Reid, G (ed.) The
Routledge Companion to Dyslexia. Oxon: Routledge, PP.43-57.
Stansfield, J. (2014) ‘ Early indentification’, Llewellyn-Jones, D. Carroll, J. and
Saunders, K. (eds) The Dyslexia Handbook 2014, Bracknell: The British
Dyslexia Association, pp.107-112.
Snowling, M. (2013) ‘Early identification and interventions for dyslexia: a
contempory view’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13 (1),
pp.7-14.
Schatschneider,C. and Torgesen, J. (2004) ‘Using Our Current Understanding
of Dyslexia to Support Early Identification and Intervention’, Journal of Child
Neurology, 19 (10), pp.759-765.
The Academic Group. (2012) Teaching the Dyslexic Child. Available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkLjGlCfLRw (Accessed 21 January,
2014).
Tunmer, W. and Greaney, K. (2009) ‘Defining Dyslexia’, Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 43(3), pp.229-243.
Webster, R. (2014) ‘Relying on teaching assistant support for SEN students is
a false economy’ The Guardian (Teacher Network), 17 April.
p. 18