Your explanation that the nature of the developmental issue informs the intervention hit home.
I teach college and my school enrolls many special needs students in our classes - some are high school age. They don't even inform us how many special needs students we have; the sure don't tell us who they are and what their special needs are. The college provides zero classroom support and put faculty in no-win situations. College professors who are experts in our specialized fields, tend not to have any training in special needs education. The results are often as ugly as you might imagine.
Faculty have complained that some special needs students - with unknown needs - can be disruptive in class (I had one melt down during an exam and start screaming - the rest of the class reached out to me asking for alternative testing options.). To be fair, the students cannot be faulted if they are thrown into a college classroom without any support or even a 'heads up' to the faculty.
The faculty approached the administration asking for help so the rest of the class is not adversely affected by special needs students enrolled in a class taught by someone with no training in special needs education. The admin's solution was to offer a few online workshops. (A counselor with some training in special needs quietly advised us not to take the workshops - they are inadequate to give us needed training but they allow the College to blame faculty if something goes horribly wrong).
The most outrageous aspect is using special needs students as pawns in a game being played by the administration. (Many faculty resort to increased apathy for teaching duties - we put our energy where it can be productive. No point wasting effort on no-win situations)
This is a thoughtful and important reflection that resonates deeply with what we know about instructional systems change and the universality of effective teaching practices. The examples you share—carefully chunked instruction, structured environments, consistent feedback—highlight the power of applying what works for students with SEND to benefit all learners. At Instructional Empowerment, our research on Early Adopters and implementation of the Model of Instruction for Deeper Learning affirms this idea: strategies that support students with the most significant needs often elevate outcomes for everyone. When we center our instructional design on clarity, structure, and student agency, we build classrooms that are more inclusive, equitable, and effective. As leaders, we must continue to advocate for high expectations and scaffolded support—not just for some students, but for every student. Thank you for resurfacing this post; it’s a timely reminder that “good teaching” is, in fact, deeply responsive teaching.
This general principle, that all children will benefit from being taught to read with structured literacy, has been the motivating idea behind the SoR movement in the US. However, the devil is in the details. So yes, while all children benefit from systematic, explicit phonics instruction, the necessary amount and intensity of that instruction is quite different for dyslexic children who need more explicit PA instruction, more practice blending and segmenting, more explicit syllabication instruction, more explicit rule instruction, etc and over a longer length of time than non-dyslexic kids. The current debate in implementing SoR in elementary classrooms is just how much structured and explicit instruction is needed before non-dyslexic kids reach escape velocity. That is the sweet spot educators are looking for, and that sweet spot still leaves dyslexic kids behind. So, in practice, teaching everyone via structured literacy does not mean meeting the needs of dyslexic kids. It's so ironic to me that all the work parents of dyslexic kids have done to bring better reading instruction to schools has resulted in a movement that has seemingly forgotten about the intensive tier 3 instruction needed for dyslexic kids.
One simple thing that every school can do for the cost of a few minutes of IT tech time:
Set the default format on all office applications [and others] to an expanded [aids readability and comprehension] and dyslexic-friendly font [eg comic sans].
Good teaching is: responsive teaching; purposeful teaching; clear and simple teaching; thought-provoking teaching.
If, good SEND teaching is good for all, and if more and more of our children are requiring SEND teaching... it begs the question...
I'm a [semi] retired teacher [40 years experience of all subjects and of all year groups from reception to A level], now mainly freelancing 1 to 1, and all my work [and I'm very busy] is to fix things for kids who have been failed by their schools.
Wow. Thank you so much for publishing this.
Your explanation that the nature of the developmental issue informs the intervention hit home.
I teach college and my school enrolls many special needs students in our classes - some are high school age. They don't even inform us how many special needs students we have; the sure don't tell us who they are and what their special needs are. The college provides zero classroom support and put faculty in no-win situations. College professors who are experts in our specialized fields, tend not to have any training in special needs education. The results are often as ugly as you might imagine.
Faculty have complained that some special needs students - with unknown needs - can be disruptive in class (I had one melt down during an exam and start screaming - the rest of the class reached out to me asking for alternative testing options.). To be fair, the students cannot be faulted if they are thrown into a college classroom without any support or even a 'heads up' to the faculty.
The faculty approached the administration asking for help so the rest of the class is not adversely affected by special needs students enrolled in a class taught by someone with no training in special needs education. The admin's solution was to offer a few online workshops. (A counselor with some training in special needs quietly advised us not to take the workshops - they are inadequate to give us needed training but they allow the College to blame faculty if something goes horribly wrong).
The most outrageous aspect is using special needs students as pawns in a game being played by the administration. (Many faculty resort to increased apathy for teaching duties - we put our energy where it can be productive. No point wasting effort on no-win situations)
This is a thoughtful and important reflection that resonates deeply with what we know about instructional systems change and the universality of effective teaching practices. The examples you share—carefully chunked instruction, structured environments, consistent feedback—highlight the power of applying what works for students with SEND to benefit all learners. At Instructional Empowerment, our research on Early Adopters and implementation of the Model of Instruction for Deeper Learning affirms this idea: strategies that support students with the most significant needs often elevate outcomes for everyone. When we center our instructional design on clarity, structure, and student agency, we build classrooms that are more inclusive, equitable, and effective. As leaders, we must continue to advocate for high expectations and scaffolded support—not just for some students, but for every student. Thank you for resurfacing this post; it’s a timely reminder that “good teaching” is, in fact, deeply responsive teaching.
This general principle, that all children will benefit from being taught to read with structured literacy, has been the motivating idea behind the SoR movement in the US. However, the devil is in the details. So yes, while all children benefit from systematic, explicit phonics instruction, the necessary amount and intensity of that instruction is quite different for dyslexic children who need more explicit PA instruction, more practice blending and segmenting, more explicit syllabication instruction, more explicit rule instruction, etc and over a longer length of time than non-dyslexic kids. The current debate in implementing SoR in elementary classrooms is just how much structured and explicit instruction is needed before non-dyslexic kids reach escape velocity. That is the sweet spot educators are looking for, and that sweet spot still leaves dyslexic kids behind. So, in practice, teaching everyone via structured literacy does not mean meeting the needs of dyslexic kids. It's so ironic to me that all the work parents of dyslexic kids have done to bring better reading instruction to schools has resulted in a movement that has seemingly forgotten about the intensive tier 3 instruction needed for dyslexic kids.
Wow - Thank you I would love to reference this in my Masters Lit review-please can I do this and what would I use as the ‘cite’?
You’re most welcome to cite it. Your masters course will have a protocol for citing blogs.
One simple thing that every school can do for the cost of a few minutes of IT tech time:
Set the default format on all office applications [and others] to an expanded [aids readability and comprehension] and dyslexic-friendly font [eg comic sans].
Good teaching is: responsive teaching; purposeful teaching; clear and simple teaching; thought-provoking teaching.
If, good SEND teaching is good for all, and if more and more of our children are requiring SEND teaching... it begs the question...
"Are our teaching methods CAUSING children's learning needs?"
I'm a [semi] retired teacher [40 years experience of all subjects and of all year groups from reception to A level], now mainly freelancing 1 to 1, and all my work [and I'm very busy] is to fix things for kids who have been failed by their schools.
It's tragic!