The Dyslexia "miracle school" is no model for the masses

Why phonics - though no panacea - is still the best bet for disadvantaged children

A recent Times article has profiled Maple Hayes Hall, a fee-paying dyslexia school led by 90-year-old Dr Neville Brown, claiming astonishing GCSE success thanks to a unique “morphological” literacy system. No phonics, no synthetic blends. Just Latin roots, prefixes, and suffixes.

It’s a compelling story, especially if you like your education features with a dash of eccentric genius and miraculous transformation. But let’s be clear: this is not a model for national literacy. Not even close.

Phonics isn’t perfect. But for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those who struggle to learn to read, it remains our best - and most realistic - chance at unlocking fluent reading.

1. You can’t scale what you can’t afford

There’s no doubt that the Maple Hayes approach is well intentioned. Teachers who understand the frustrations of struggling readers, and who can offer consistent, small-group or one-to-one support, can transform a child’s experience of school. The value of personalised attention, clear routines, and patient encouragement shouldn’t be underestimated.

But we need to be honest about the context. Maple Hayes charges between £19,000 and £25,000 a year. Most of its students arrive with education, health and care plans (EHCPs) and a level of parental advocacy rarely available to the children most at risk of reading failure. Praising their bespoke method without acknowledging this privilege is misleading at best.

Systematic phonics, by contrast, is affordable, replicable and deliverable across thousands of state schools. It’s not a magic bullet, but it can be—and has been—implemented at scale. That matters. In education, if it doesn’t scale, it doesn’t work.

2. The evidence is in: phonics works - especially for the most vulnerable

International and UK-based studies consistently support phonics for early reading. The National Reading Panel (US), the Rose Review (UK), and OECD research all point in the same direction: systematic phonics instruction leads to better word reading outcomes, particularly for children from low-income backgrounds.

These aren’t cherry-picked case studies or boutique success stories. They’re population-level data sets, replicated across time and context.

If you’re serious about equity, you need to be serious about what works at scale. And right now, that’s phonics.

3. Morphology is vital but only after decoding is secure

Dr Brown pits morphology against phonics as though they’re rivals. They’re not. They’re partners and are best taught in careful instructional sequences. First, children must master how letters correspond to sounds. Only then can they meaningfully dissect the morphological structure of words like reprehensible or transgression.

This isn’t conjecture. It’s a foundational principle in reading science: phoneme–grapheme correspondence first; morphological awareness second. Skipping the first step leaves students guessing at meanings they can’t even sound out.

4. Treating dyslexia is not the same as solving illiteracy

Maple Hayes focuses on children with diagnosed literacy difficulties, children whose families can afford independent provision or successfully navigate the EHCP system.

But most reading failure doesn’t look like that. It looks like the child in a mainstream classroom who doesn’t get enough targeted instruction. It looks like the boy who reads cat as cot in Year 3 and is quietly passed along until it’s too late.

For those children, early and effective phonics can prevent a lifetime of struggle. Morphology might help later but only if decoding’s already in place.

5. “Phonics doesn’t work”? Try again.

Dr Brown claims: “Phonics doesn’t work for any children.” It’s a bold assertion. It’s also bafflingly close minded.

If phonics didn’t work, the last two decades of reading progress in England - particularly in KS1 SATs and PIRLS scores - would be inexplicable. In addition, analysis from the Education Policy Institute (Nov 2024) points to a clear upward trend in early reading attainment following the introduction of the PSC in 2012. What doesn’t work is bad phonics: half-baked schemes, inconsistent delivery, lack of assessment.

The solution to poor practice isn’t to abandon phonics. It’s to teach it well: with fidelity, feedback, and follow-up.

6. Compare the GCSE outcomes and note the scale

Maple Hayes reports that 33 percent of its students achieved five or more GCSEs at grade 4+ including English and Maths, and 80 percent secured at least a grade 4 in English. That is admirable given their starting profiles.

By contrast, Michaela Community School - serving a non-selective, largely disadvantaged intake - boasts more than 91 percent of students achieving grade 5 or above in English and Maths , and in recent years achieved the highest Progress 8 score in England.

The difference isn’t down to funding, it’s down to scale and structure. Michaela reaches hundreds of students through explicit evidence-based instruction and rigorous routines. Maple Hayes does well for the a cohort of just over 100 children.

You might prefer the vibe at Maple Hall to that at Michaela. That’s fine. If you can get your children into to either school you’re very fortunate but, let’s be clear, your children are likely to get far better GCSE outcomes at Michael than Maple Hall.

The uncomfortable truth

What Maple Hayes offers is remarkable but it’s also niche. It’s a Rolls-Royce solution in a world that needs millions of solid, reliable bicycles.

If we care about equity, we must prioritise those instructional menthos most likely to work for all students. Phonics isn’t a miracle cure. But for children growing up without books, without language-rich homes, without the time and money for tailored instruction, it is a lifeline. It’s teachable. It’s scaleable. And it works.

Until someone can demonstrate that an alternative method works better at scale - with the same budget, the same cohort, and the same constraints - phonics remains the most just, evidence-based strategy we have.