home index by author index by subject

Talk; Good Practice - Inf/Junior

Thursday stream 3 Session 09.00 - 11.10 Length 25 minutes

SIDNEY (Screening and Intervention for Dyslexia, Notably in the Early Years)

Pauline Bentote

SEN Adviser Local Education Office River Way Havant Hants PO9 2EL Tel 02392 441442 Pauline.Bentote@btinternet.com

Abstract

SIDNEY (Screening and Intervention for Dyslexia, Notably in the Early Years) is a major project funded by Hampshire County Council. Pupils in the third term of their reception year are screened to see if they are at risk of developing future literacy difficulties, including dyslexia. Those pupils identified are placed on an intervention programme that runs during their first term of Year One. This programme is designed to be delivered daily by a learning support assistant for fifteen minutes, on a 1:1 basis. Results have been excellent, with 74% of pupils catching up with their peers and reaching the level expected by the National Literacy Strategy (ie spelling CVC words) by the second term in Year One.

Background

SIDNEY is the acronym for a successful programme developed in Hampshire; it stands for Screening and Intervention for Dyslexia, Notably in the Early Years. Its aims are

• to reduce the number of pupils who fail to learn to read in Key Stage 1
• to reduce the number of pupils who require high levels of funding in Key Stage 2 in order to support their access to the curriculum, owing to their poor literacy skills
• to reduce the number of pupils who develop associated behavioural and emotional difficulties as a result of their failure to learn to read effectively and
• to improve the quality of teaching during Key Stage 1 by extending the knowledge and skills of class teachers, special needs teachers and assistants.

Schools are required to screen all pupils who are in the third term of their Reception Year (using either the Dyslexia Early Screening Test or CoPS) to identify pupils who are likely to experience literacy difficulties in the future. During their first term of year 1, identified pupils work through an intervention programme, written by a small group of advisers and educational psychologists. The intervention programme is designed to be used for 15 minutes a day on a 1:1 basis, with a learning support assistant. The aim is that pupils should attain the levels expected by the National Literacy Strategy by the end of Year 1, term 1 (ie to be able to spell CVC words accurately, with correct letter formation.)

The intervention programme is broken into set lessons and is scripted to enable learning support assistants to carry out the programme with minimum training and support. It consists of two strands

• the core route (multi-sensory, cumulative teaching of sound-symbol links, plus blending of phonemes)
• the phonological route (training in phonological awareness)

The Pilot Study

The project built upon the work of a pilot study that involved nine schools and which was split into two sections:

a. the implementation and evaluation of the DEST and CoPS screening measures and
b. the development and evaluation of the SIDNEY intervention programme.

The aims of the pilot study were

• to compare and evaluate three screening methods, DEST, CoPS 1 and class teacher only identification, in order to find out if the same groups of pupils were identified by all three
• to look at the advantages and disadvantages of each screening measure in order to make recommendations to schools as to which method they should choose
• to use objective data to assess the effectiveness of the intervention programme and
• to modify the intervention programme if necessary in response to pupil progress as well as teacher, pupil and learning support assistant comment.

Approximately 400 pupils were involved in the pilot project. Teachers in all nine schools were asked to identify for themselves those pupils they thought might experience future literacy difficulties and were then required to screen all pupils with both CoPS and DEST.

Results of the Pilot Study

Analysis of the study found that

a. CoPS and DEST agreed to a significant level on the identification of pupils at risk of future literacy difficulties. However, they did not agree strongly about the severity of that risk.
b. Teachers identified a higher number of pupils whom they thought likely to experience literacy difficulties than either of the two screening tools (CoPS identified 15.7%, DEST identified 20.9% and teachers identified 37%).
c. Despite this, both CoPS and DEST identified pupils that the teachers had not identified.

It had been hoped that, as an outcome of the pilot study, two recommendations could be made to schools:

• whether a screening tool was required or whether in fact teachers could identify all 'at risk' pupils themselves without the need of an additional screening tool and that,
• if a screening tool was required, which was the more efficient and effective to use.

Research results, including feedback from school staff who carried out the screening, led to a firm recommendation that objective screening should take place. However, it was not possible to recommend one screening measure over the other as neither was found to be significantly better or worse in terms of ease of use or in the accuracy of identification of individual pupils. Instead, teachers were presented with the research results and with the strengths and weaknesses of each screening tool and were then advised to make their own choice based on these facts.

The Intervention Programme

There was little in terms of published material to offer schools when they asked how they should then support the 5-year old pupils they were beginning to identify through screening. This is because the majority of material available at that time (1996) was written to be used with pupils of seven years and upward. Thus, a new intervention programme was written by a small group of SEN Advisers and educational psychologists, based on the principles of established successful materials for older dyslexic pupils (ie the establishment of firm sound-symbol linkages plus use of cumulative approaches and multi-sensory teaching methods). In addition, ideas based on the growing bank of research into the importance of early phonological awareness were incorporated into the programme.

Evaluation of the outcomes of this intervention programme was extremely pleasing, both from the objective data obtained and from feedback by participants. The pupils were given a pre- and post-intervention spelling test. Analysis of these tests showed that 74% of pupils, many of whom had demonstrated no sound-symbol correspondence at all in the pre-intervention test, were able to write CVC words at the end of the term's intervention programme. This result was later replicated with a far larger cohort ie pupils from the 96 schools who returned spelling tests in the first year of the main project.

Schools were also asked if the learning support assistants and the pupils had enjoyed using the programme, whether the instructions were clear, whether the recommended timings were sufficient, whether the pupils had made progress and had gained in confidence and whether progress had been generalised into the classroom. In all aspects, results were overwhelmingly positive. At this point, a report of the outcomes of the pilot project was submitted to the Education Committee.

The Main Project

As a result of the successes recorded in the pilot project, funding was made available through GEST and Hampshire County Council to provide free training for all Hampshire's Infant and Primary schools. During the full day's training, schools were instructed in the characteristics of young dyslexic children and were then shown how to carry out the screening and how to run the intervention programme. They were also provided with copies of the SIDNEY intervention programme, consisting of a teaching book and a resources pack, published by Hampshire County Council.

Over a three-year period, 360 infant and primary schools in Hampshire have received this training and are now implementing the SIDNEY intervention programme. There has been careful evaluation of the progress made by pupils, with 74% of those pupils identified as being at risk of future literacy difficulties by the screening, being able to spell CVC words after the term's intervention programme. Separate research studies carried out independently on pupils using the SIDNEY intervention programme have noted improvements in the following areas

• fine motor control
• levels of task focus
• ability to identify phonemes in spoken words
• writing of recognisable letter shapes
• time spent on tasks within the classroom.

Many schools have developed their own practice when using the SIDNEY programme. Some work successfully with small groups of 'low-risk' pupils during the daily literacy hour. Where schools are identifying large numbers of pupils who require support, many work on a 1:1 basis with those at 'moderate' risk during the autumn term. These pupils usually make rapid progress and by the end of the term are able to work with the rest of the class during word-level work without requiring further individual support. This then allows time for the learning support assistants to support those at 'high risk' on a 1:1 basis during the spring - and often the summer - terms.

Enthusiasm for SIDNEY continues. Regular SIDNEY newsletters share some of the excellent practice and creative ideas observed in schools. 'After SIDNEY' courses now run to enable teachers and learning support assistants to plan for and support those pupils who still require help after the term's input. Early identification is no longer merely preached in Hampshire - it is firmly put into practice.

More details of the SIDNEY Intervention programme (cost £50) are available from
Pauline.Bentote@btinternet.com or from Linda Elliott, Publications Officer, Education Department, Hampshire County Council, The Castle, Winchester, Hampshire, UK.