As education leaders, we must ask ourselves a critical question: are reading difficulties fixed or fixable?

This one of the most pressing questions for education. Look at the so-called stubborn ‘tail’ of underachievement in reading. For decades, far too many children in this country have left primary school unprepared for the next stage of their education.

The reading attainment gap

Despite decades of research and investment, the so-called ‘tail’ of underachievement in reading persists. It’s time to challenge the assumption that these difficulties are inevitable and explore what it really means to make reading with ease and enjoyment and understanding accessible for every child.

'Matthew Effects', were identified in reading by psychologist Keith Stanovich (1986). Thousands of years ago, very few people had access to reading and writing. The privileged with literacy skills were the law makers, religious authorities and civil servants of their time. Even today, lawyers say that the ‘power is in the pen’, and that was certainly true for Biblical scribes.

The ‘original’ ‘Matthew Effect’ (Gospel according to St Matthew) may have referred to ancient tax laws that left the poor poorer and rich, richer. We should be concerned that this phrase has been applied to a modern-day education system. However, so-called ‘Matthew Effects’ refer to the way that children who do not learn to read, do not learn through reading and enter a downward spiral. The data show children who are behind in early reading at Key Stage 1 fall further behind year on year and leave primary school unable to access the KS3 curriculum.

Deficit models of the reading attainment gap

Another highly respected reading researcher, Charles Perfetti proposed a ‘bottleneck hypothesis’ to describe processing difficulties among children with weak reading comprehension. This image conjures up a rigid structure that is going to break under internal pressure or continue to block the flow of information. A leading researcher in the field of reading comprehension, Jane Oakhill referred to the three possible scenarios of the so-called ‘bottleneck hypothesis’

• a deficit in decoding at the single word level due to the reader’s limited vocabulary

• a deficit in automaticity of decoding which consumes the attention or mental space

• no capacity in the short-term memory for comprehension processes.

The implication was that weakness in vocabulary, cognitive processing or attention would limit comprehension and furthermore, that the child’s lack of background knowledge accounted for poor comprehension scores:

A difficulty with accessing the relevant knowledge and integrating it with information in the text because of processing limitations. (Oakhill, 1993, p.228).

The limitations and deficit models described by reading researchers underline the notion that reading difficulties are 'fixed' rather than fixable. Maryanne Wolf has also isolated specific areas of processing that may contribute to these 'deficits'.

Failure in any of the major processes and structures involved in naming speed - including their connections, their automaticity, or their use of a different circuit - could cause either naming or reading deficits.’ (Wolf, 2008, p. 179).

But what about neuroplasticity?

How can this view persist when neuroscience has established that our brains are ‘plastic’ in the sense that they can learn, unlearn, override and relearn new processes. This ‘neuroplasticity’ is as old as evolution itself. Processes of adaptation to changing environments allow us to flex and respond to new conditions as they arise. Reading difficulties must be fixable, we just need more insight, greater understanding, empathy, and new inclusive approaches.

But what if reading difficulties were not written in our genes?

One of the most disturbing findings in reading research concerns research into genes that might be implicated in reading difficulties. If a genetic basis for reading problems has been found, then that does this mean that reading difficulties are indeed 'fixed'?

Would this mean that ‘Matthew Effects’ describe an inherited trait?

Some people might argue that if it’s in the Bible, it must be true. Others might say, if we’ve found the gene, then we do not need to fund the quest for the silver bullet, the intervention, the equitable values statement or the inclusive approaches.

The thing with genes is that they are only switched-on aka ‘expressed’ under particular conditions and then they function as ‘useful’ contextualized information for the next few generations. There isn’t a gene for reading difficulties, and there isn’t a gene for being good at video games either. However, what we do have is a gene variant that is expressed when certain conditions are met in early childhood and these do impact executive function and dopamine, which in turn manifest as behaviors that impede the child’s ability to focus upon and perceive fine-grained information. So where does this leave us? Are reading difficulties fixed or fixable?

What about rising number of children living in poverty and disadvantage?

Looking beyond our country, to PISA tables correlated with the Gini Co-efficient (a metric used to compare the wealth inequalities of nations), countries with a wider range between the wealthy and economically disadvantaged also showed wider gaps in reading attainment scores by SES (socio-economic status).

If we do nothing, reading difficulties remain 'fixed' as illustrated by the reference to ‘Matthew Effects’ and the rigid image of the ‘bottleneck hypothesis’.

If we follow the assumption that we are always learning, responding and adapting to our environment through neuroplastic processes, then we simply need to enrich the environment for the children who are falling behind.

Relational rhythm

A child’s earliest relationships determine whether they are sensitive to phonemes, the smallest sounds of language. This sensitivity to phonemes overlaps with sensitivity to rhythm. Both are processed in the same tiny units of sound taking up tiny milliseconds of time.

Even this finding has been presented as a deficit model, with the timing deficit in dyslexia identified more than two decades ago by Usha Goswami. And Charles Perfetti had already described ’asynchronous word processing’ back in 1985.

Rhythmic enrichment of the learning environment for lower attaining readers is available (Long, 2014). Just as breathing techniques can reset the nervous system, rhythm-based reading intervention can sharpen phonemic awareness, support the information processing portal of working memory (aka ‘the bottleneck’) and smooth the shapes of phrases and sentences to such an extent that their grammatical structures are detected and reading comprehension snaps into focus.

As leaders we have a choice - to accept the narrative of fixed ability or to build enriched environments that make the required progress in reading possible for every child. Neuroscience shows us that learning is never static, and with the right conditions, every pupil can flourish.

Marion Long is an education leader and advocate for inclusive literacy practices. With a passion for ensuring every child can access the curriculum through reading, she helps schools and leaders implement evidence-informed strategies that develop fluency and confidence for lower attaining learners. Her work bridges research and practice, empowering educators to move beyond deficit models and create environments where lower attaining children can thrive and embrace reading.

REFERENCES

Breznitz, Z. (2006) Fluency in Reading, Mahwah, N.J. Lawrence, Erlbaum

Goswami, U. (2003) ‘How to ‘beat’ dyslexia’ Psychologist, 16 (9), 462-465

Long, M (2014) I can read further and there’s more meaning while I read’: An exploratory study investigating the impact of a rhythm-based intervention on children’s reading. Research Studies in Music Education, 36 (1), 107-124, https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103x14528453

Oakhill, J. (1993) Children’s difficulties in reading comprehension, Educational Psychology Review, 5 (3) 223-237

Perfetti, C. (1985) Reading Ability, New York, Oxford University Press.

Stanovich, K. (1986) Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy, Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.

Wolf, M. (2008) Proust and the Squid: The story and science of the reading brain, London, Faber & Faber.