51����

How can we get better at diagnosing and supporting pupils with dyslexia to improve their school experience?

That was the question debated by a high-profile panel of experts at an event hosted at King’s College London last week.

The experts were academics who earlier this year published a new definition of dyslexia, some of whom wrote about this for Tes, and who used the event to underline why they felt a new definition was required.

Philip Kirby, senior lecturer in the history of education at King’s College London, began proceedings with a potted history of the understanding of dyslexia.

It was a German physician who first coined the term in 1883, he said. However, interestingly, cases of dyslexia were more frequent in Britain because the English language has a less phonetic spelling system compared with that in Germany, “where cases were said to be far less common”.

Of course, our understanding of dyslexia has evolved since then, he added, which has meant numerous attempts to define dyslexia, such as the World Federation of Neurology in 1968, the International Dyslexia Association in 2002 and the Rose Review in 2009.

Time to rethink dyslexia

Each of these has come to be the accepted definition of its time, Kirby added, but eventually new research means a rethink is required, as Margaret Snowling, emeritus research fellow in psychology at the University of Oxford, explained.

She said: “The classic view of dyslexia was a discrepancy defined disorder characterised by unexpected failure in learning to read.

“But more recently, we’ve recognised that although something like 7 to 10 per cent of the school population have that classic form of dyslexia, there’s a wide hinterland of children with more neurodiverse conditions, of which dyslexia is at the core.”

So this new study developed the Rose definition to reflect the most up-to-date understanding of dyslexia (see the box-out at the end for the full definition, or read ).

What has changed?

The key differences, explained Julia Carroll, professor of psychology in education at the University of Birmingham, can be split into three areas:

1. Reading fluency

“We’ve tried to give a key role for reading fluency in our definition,” Carroll said, pointing out that some people with dyslexia read accurately, but in a way that is slow and effortful.

“We wanted to get across that that can still be considered dyslexia. We shouldn’t just be focusing on accuracy.”

2. Processing difficulties

The researchers also wanted to highlight processing difficulties, rather than specifically reading and spelling difficulties.

“We think that not all individuals with reading and spelling difficulties are dyslexic,” Carroll said. “And not all individuals with dyslexia have difficulties in all areas of literacy.”

She added that the researchers also “didn’t want to make a definition based on a score that might change”.

A child with reading difficulties, for example, might receive intensive intervention that improves their reading.

“Are they suddenly not dyslexic? No, the evidence suggests that they are still dyslexic. They’re still having underlying processing difficulties, which means they need ongoing support when the class demands change,” Carroll said.

3. Co-occurring difficulties

Finally, this new definition moves away from thinking of dyslexia as a specific, isolated difficulty, Carroll added.

“We now know from the research, and I think practitioners have known for a long time, that individuals with dyslexia can often have other patterns of co-occurring difficulties”, as explained by the multiple deficit model. These might include dyspraxia or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

‘A postcode and economic status lottery’

But what does all this mean in practice - and could it help more pupils receive a timely diagnosis?

The problem is that in England, “there is currently no specific, delineated pathway for the assessment of children with a suspected SpLD [specific learning difficulty]”, such as dyslexia, said Caroline Holden, who recently stepped down as chair of the SpLD Assessment Standards Committee.

“In the UK Parliament, there’s been no recent significant legislation or policy directive regarding the assessment of dyslexia in schools,” she added, meaning “there remains a continuing postcode and economic status lottery regarding access to assessment for an SpLD”.

This means concerned parents and teachers often enter a “bewildering maze of sometimes school-based, sometimes local, sometimes national, statutory or non-statutory assessment and intervention provision” in the hope of assisting children with suspected dyslexia.

“There are systems for the identification of needs and learning needs, and there are locally devised assessment and intervention strategies,” Holden continued, but there is “huge variability in these; I think this does need to change”.

Changing policy

The hope of the new definition is that, if widely accepted and made universal, it will make dyslexia assessment and intervention more consistent across England. But only if those who have the power to change that are paying attention.

“We hope that policymakers are listening,” Snowling said.

There was some excitement, then, when Shockat Adam, the Independent MP for Leicester South, introduced himself during the Q&A.

Adam, who has a daughter with dyslexia and is the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), was likely just the sort of person they hoped to have at the event.

“What bridge do we have between this definition and the new government policy on SEND,” asked Adam.

The panellists did not respond directly to the question, beyond clarifying that the research study had been well underway before the Labour government was elected in July 2024.

Inclusion should be ‘built in’ to core of schools

In fact, during her earlier presentation, Holden had already described how the study’s findings might intersect with the work of the government’s advisory group on inclusion, chaired by Ormiston Academies Trust CEO Tom Rees.

Holden recalled how Rees “has recently said he would like to retire the label ‘SEND’ [because] we’ve become much more precise in our understanding of different needs”, making the label redundant.

She added that the study group tends to agree with Rees, and that “good provision” - including for dyslexia - “should be built into the core of all mainstream schools”.

However, it was a further part of Adam’s long question that raised some eyebrows from the panel and the assembled academic guests.

“Unfortunately, because of the culture war that we live in at the moment, people with dyslexia are intertwined with this woke culture - unfortunately, by a lot of parliamentarians,” he said. “So I wondered if there’s anything in there that’s been considered in that aspect.”

The panel - likely bemused and disappointed by Adam’s attempt to throw them to the culture wars lions - did not expand on this point.

But Snowling made it clear that the MP’s presence at the event was welcomed and could hopefully use their findings to inform policy.

“We’re very pleased that you’re here...It’s really important this doesn’t get lost in academia. If you’ve got any suggestions about how we can input what we said here a little bit more to policymakers, we’d be very pleased to hear them,” she said.

Early intervention in schools

An audience question the panel did feel happier answering was what they would like schools to take from all this. The answer was the awareness of the need for more early intervention.

Holden said that schools - especially primaries - should have more “systematic processes for recognising red flags” that could be signs of dyslexia.

A decision around statutory points of referral for assessment would have to be left to Parliament, she said, gesturing knowingly towards Adam, but in the meantime, “schools themselves can put those processes in place, in association with their trust or local authorities”.

Carroll added that what she would like to see in schools is a more “graduated approach, which is something that’s well established in the SEND code of practice, but not necessarily usual practice within dyslexia”.

This means teachers “start early, looking at the children who might have difficulties, thinking about what the causes of those difficulties might be. You fit in intervention, regardless of what those causes are, and look at how they progress, and then start thinking in more detail about diagnostic assessment only after that intervention pays”.

Snowling added one final thought-provoking point, which she again directed to “our parliamentarian colleague”, that could offer a method of straightforward early intervention for schools to identify children with dyslexia.

“In England, we have the very effective phonics screening check in Year 1,” she said.

“If it were mandatory that children who didn’t reach the standard then had intervention, I think that would be one step forward, and certainly something that teachers should know about.”

For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter