Bullock (1975)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Foreword, Membership, Contents, Introduction

Part 1 Attitudes and standards
Chapter 1 Attitudes to the teaching of English
Chapter 2 Standards of reading
Chapter 3 Monitoring

Part 2 Language in the early years
Chapter 4 Language and learning
Chapter 5 Language in the early years

Part 3 Reading
Chapter 6 The reading process
Chapter 7 Reading in the early years
Chapter 8 Reading: the later stages
Chapter 9 Literature

Part 4 Language in the middle and secondary years
Chapter 10 Oral language
Chapter 11 Written language
Chapter 12 Language across the curriculum

Part 5 Organisation
Chapter 13 The primary and middle years
Chapter 14 Continuity between schools
Chapter 15 The secondary school
Chapter 16 LEA advisory services

Part 6 Reading and language difficulties
Chapter 17 Screening, diagnosis and recording
Chapter 18 Children with reading difficulties
Chapter 19 Adult literacy
Chapter 20 Children from families of overseas origin

Part 7 Resources
Chapter 21 Books
Chapter 22 Technological aids and broadcasting

Part 8 Teacher education and training
Chapter 23 Initial training
Chapter 24 In-service education

Part 9 The survey
Chapter 25: I Introduction
Chapter 25: II Primary commentary
Chapter 25: III Secondary commentary
Chapter 25: IV The questionnaire forms (not online)
Chapter 25: V Technical notes (not online)

Part 10 Sumary of conclusions and recommendations
Chapter 26 Conclusions and recommendations

Appendix A Witnesses and sources of evidence
Appendix B Visits made
Glossary
Index

Report of the Committee of Enquiry appointed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science under the Chairmanship of Sir Alan Bullock FBA

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1975
© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Chapter 17 Screening, diagnosis and recording
[pages 245 - 265]

SCREENING

17.1 Schools have long played a part in preventive and curative medicine for children by means of the School Health Service. We believe it is now time to introduce a far more systematic procedure for the prevention and cure of educational difficulties. Early detection of educational failure is of the greatest importance in the development of each child, since once he has begun to falter and is allowed to continue struggling unaided, he is less and less likely to make sound progress. We have therefore considered carefully the proposal made to us by many witnesses that every LEA might institute a screening programme.

17.2 It is first necessary to define the issue clearly to avoid confusion in the use of terms. In the written evidence the term 'at risk' was applied equally to young children who were likely to fail and to older children who were already encountering failure. 'Screening' is a concept drawn from the field of medicine, where large-scale X-ray tests for chest conditions are a familiar form of it. Screening of pre-school children at intervals between birth and entry to school has been the practice in many local authorities for a number of years. It has consisted of physical examination and developmental tests, intended to identify as soon as possible any organic disorder or any delay in acquiring important sensory-motor skills. Translated into educational terms, screening implies the application of one or more procedures to a defined population of pupils, usually a whole age group, which would identify pupils likely to experience learning problems. This information would alert teachers to preventive action and indicate the need for further investigation in specific cases. Defined in this way screening is a process which would be applied at the beginning of the child's school life, before his growing involvement with the process of learning to read gives him an experience of failure. In other words, it identifies the child 'at risk' in the sense that though failure is to some extent predictable in his case he has not yet encountered it. Equally, screening can be applied at a later age, say after two years of schooling, where it would be designed to give information about the reading disabilities children had already begun to reveal. Both concepts were represented in the views of witnesses with whom we discussed the subject. There was a division of opinion among them as to the most appropriate age at which to introduce screening, and this is an issue to which we have given close consideration.

17.3 However, before arriving at any conclusions about the detailed operation of screening procedures we invited 145 LEAs in England to tell us how they identified their children likely to experience reading and language difficulties. The results of this inquiry*, which was carried out before the reorganisation of local government, are given at the end of the chapter. The 93 replies ranged from accounts of relatively informal and subjective procedures to data from fully standardised tests administered with statistical support. In some cases the tests were supplemented by carefully designed checklists on which the teacher recorded her observations over a period of time. Equally varied was the extent to which these surveys did in fact function as effective identification measures. Some identified the schools with particular problems, but not the individual child who was failing. They were therefore unable to yield the information which would lead to individual attention, and could not, by our definition, be called screening. Others were so organised that they enabled additional help to be concentrated on the children shown to need it. It is our central contention in this chapter that the provision of special help should be an automatic sequel to a screening and diagnostic programme, and that it should be given immediately to every child shown to be in need of it. Indeed, we believe it essential that a plan for subsequent action should be worked out in detail before any policy of screening is adopted.

*(1) An account of the results of the inquiry appears as Annex A.
(2) Included as Annex B are descriptions of the screening practice of three local authorities whose contrasting systems we present as examples.

17.5 This takes us to the question of the age at which screening procedures should be administered, and to the nature of those procedures. A useful starting point for our discussions of this was the recommendation of the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee (1):

'Teachers will notice any indications of reading disability during the first years at school, but at some stage a systematic screening of all children will be necessary. The end of the infant school will be a good time for this: at the age of 7-8 children should be sufficiently advanced in their reading for meaningful results to be obtained from the screening process; and it would be a suitably early age to begin remedial treatment for disabilities which are revealed. Screening should be the responsibility of teachers, who should, however, collaborate with educational psychologists in devising means to identify those children with severe reading difficulties'.

17.7 There are certain other factors to be considered when decisions are being reached on the most appropriate age for screening. Any testing of all children at the end of the infant school would normally be carried out by teachers whose responsibility for teaching them would shortly cease. If, on the other hand, it were to take place early in the junior school the teachers administering it would be those who would go on to devise the necessary help. It would be quite wrong to face children with a test situation at the beginning of their life in a new school, when they have to adjust to new teachers, new companions, and new surroundings after a long summer holiday. A date towards the middle of the first term would be a good compromise. A month or so usually gives the children time to settle down, and the second term would be to delay too long the appropriate measures to be taken when the analysis of the results was complete. Our own view, therefore, is that if tests are used they should be introduced not earlier than the middle of the first term of the junior school and not later than the beginning of the second term.

17.8 We believe the most important part of the procedure is careful observation and recording. Of course, every good infant teacher sees this as a vital part of her normal work. She is continually observing her pupils and noting their difficulties, and she is often responsible for the first step in referring children to the educational psychologist, the school health service doctor, the speech therapist, or the social worker. The question is whether such practice should be systematised, so that a checklist ensuring consistency of observation is completed by every teacher and becomes part of the screening profile. An instance is to be seen in the first of the illustrations in Annex B, where teachers, administrators, advisers, and educational psychologists cooperated to produce such a checklist. It has proved useful in giving teachers a common and agreed framework for their assessment of children's development. It has also been a support to young and inexperienced teachers, of whom there are many in this area of high staff turnover.

17.9 In our view there is a strong case for systematic observation as a first stage of the screening process from the time the child enters school. In recommending the principle we would add that if checklists are to be introduced they should be developed in full consultation with the teachers who are to use them. This will involve a good deal of preparatory activity on the part of teachers, advisers, and educational psychologists. The agreed structure should emerge from a programme of meetings and study groups and should be supported by in-service training at both general and school level. We do not underestimate the scale of effort this will require on the part of the authority, but we feel it is fully justified in its benefits. We have been impressed by the results where the educational psychologists have seen themselves as closely associated with the teachers in their work.

17.10 As a foundation for its careful observation the infant school should start with the advantage of information from the pre-school stage. Some parents are prompt to supply information on such matters as delayed speech and defective hearing, but others are either unaware that there is an abnormality or for one reason or another do not let the school know. For this reason it is important that the teacher should be informed in confidence of the results of the child's medical examination, whether this is carried out just before or just after admission. The school doctor and the health visitor are valuable sources of information to the school, and the latter is particularly well placed to note evidence of speech delay (2). We welcome the recognition now being given to educational implications in school entrant medical examinations and to the need for improved communications between school doctors and teachers. Equally important is the information that can come from the educational welfare officer, the social worker, and the speech therapist (3).

17.11 The results of the systematic observation in the infant school should be recorded in such a way that the development of the child 'at risk' can be closely followed. The Sheldon Committee Report (4) encouraged arrangements for the medical screening of young children, and recommended that local health authorities should maintain a register of children found to be developmentally at risk. In this way the children could be kept under special observation until the presence of any disorder or delay were proved or disproved. By analogy it is pertinent to consider whether there would be an advantage in recommending that LEAs should keep a register of children at risk in educational terms. The experience of local health authorities who have used 'at risk registers' has not proved entirely satisfactory. As the authors of From Birth to Seven (5) point out: 'The Registers have tended to become too large for practical use and substantial numbers of handicaps have been missed in low risk children who were not on the register'. This seems to us a serious limitation, and there is every reason to believe that the same criticism would apply to registers used as a sole means of identifying children who might need special help with reading and language. The essential is that no child who is for any reason missed should continue to be missed. More reliable and productive would be a detailed profile of every child's strengths and weaknesses, and this should be used to plan an appropriate learning programme. All this implies the closest cooperation between the schools, the School Psychological Service, and the LEA Advisory Service, with information where appropriate from the School Health Service.

17.12 Central to the whole procedure is the notion that the information can be applied to the child's needs however frequently he changes school. It is sometimes suggested that in areas where there is little or no social disadvantage there is no need to screen. This is a questionable argument, but in any case it presupposes a situation of general stability, with teacher and family mobility low. Nowadays, such stability is less and less common, and schools in many relatively affluent areas experience constant changes of both teachers and families. It is a recurring emphasis of this chapter that the detailed recording of a child's performance is essential, with the results of screening an important foundation for it. In poorer areas, where there is likely to be a higher proportion of children 'at risk', the argument applies with still greater force. In localities where housing problems, uncongenial surroundings and poor school buildings contribute to a high teacher turnover, the new and inexperienced teacher must be alerted to the needs of individual children. Here too there is a high rate of family mobility, if for a different set of reasons. This is well illustrated by the fact that 50 per cent of children move out of Inner London before reaching their 14th birthdays. The case hardly needs pressing that in such circumstances some substantial record of every child should go with him to his next school, a point which is elaborated later in the chapter.

17.13 We confess to some doubts about the setting of a standardised test for all the children in the age group, and these doubts stem from what we regard as two principal difficulties. The first is the nature of the test itself. Those most widely used at present are of the simple word recognition variety. They have the advantage of being easy to administer and of being familiar in the schools. They would serve a screening function to the limited degree that failure to recognise graded words beyond a given point suggests the child has some measure of disability, even though it may prove to be transient. However, such a measure may be quite at odds with the range of skills the infant school has been aiming to develop. In our view, if such tests are used for screening in the first year of the junior school they should take account of the critical processes at work in reading for meaning and not be restricted to word recognition. They should combine simplicity of operation with a recognition of the holistic nature of language learning. Moreover, they should ideally have been developed and evaluated within the last ten years. Such a set of criteria at once limits the choice at present available. Our second reservation relates to the question of how the test results are used. We see no advantage in mass testing and centrally stored data unless the outcome is special and individualised help directed precisely at the children who need it. It can be argued that for that to happen there is no need for a test to be given, without any kind of discrimination, to every child in an authority. The more logical course would be for the teacher's systematised observation to provide first-level identification, followed where necessary by more detailed scrutiny. Against this can be placed the argument that universal testing at a given age ensures that no child is overlooked. The plain truth is that everything depends upon the diagnostic skill of the teacher. She is the one in close daily contact with the child and is best placed to relate his reading development to his intellectual endowment, his linguistic competence, and his home circumstances. Compared with an assessment of this kind, the results of other measures to detect failure in reading are bound to be crude. If we were satisfied that every teacher was equipped with this professional skill we should consider the mass test of very doubtful value. If we were convinced that the observation and recording throughout an Authority's schools was comprehensive and consistent we should consider the mass test altogether superfluous. In our view the best system of screening is one of systematic observation and recording, with selective testing of those pupils about whom detailed and specific information is required. However, we are emphatic that a system of observation, recording and selective testing must have well-developed support services and in-service training of high quality. Until these conditions operate the testing of the whole age group, despite its limitations, has to be seen as the most practical course. Indeed, we accept that for some local authorities it is an essential part of their procedure, particularly in the present circumstances of high teacher mobility and a large proportion of children likely to reveal learning difficulties.

17.14 One further point needs to be made. At present it is common practice to test for the purpose of ascertaining comparative reading levels by schools. A norm-based approach will reveal among other things the great disparities which exist between areas and between schools within those areas. It could therefore be used to help an authority concentrate additional resources where they were most needed. Where tests are used there is everything to be said for employing the results to determine where extra teachers, equipment or money should be allocated to the best effect. Some authorities have already used this device effectively. We emphasise, however, that the first aim of screening must always be to identify the needs of individual children. Undeniably, information to guide policy decisions is important, but nothing should take precedence over this primary objective. It is perhaps wise to reaffirm at this point our belief in the importance of the daily concern of the teacher for the learning experiences of the children in his or her care. What we have described in this section is intended to support good teaching, and if our proposals were implemented in such a way as to interfere with it we should consider this a backward step.

DIAGNOSIS AND RECORDING

17.15 We see the screening procedure as only the first stage in what should be a continuous process of diagnosis. Whatever the level of a child's reading ability, at whatever age, a scrutiny of the way in which he is functioning will enable the teacher to design reading experiences which will take his skill further. It is clear from the letters we received and from our conversations in schools that teachers take very seriously their responsibility for detecting children's reading difficulties. Many witnesses suggested that teachers should be equipped with new tests, simple of administration, to help them in this task. On the other hand, we talked to teachers who had grown accustomed to the idea that testing was the province of the educational psychologist. Some were suspicious of testing, believing that it occupied valuable time which would be better spent in teaching. We shall take up later the question of the relationship between teacher and educational psychologist, but would like to dispose of the other argument at this early point. Testing should never be carried out without a real purpose. If it is done simply to complete a column beside a child's name then the critic is right; the time would have been better spent in teaching. A basic principle can be stated: testing should always lead to more efficient teaching, which it is designed to serve. It should be seen as an essential dimension of the process of teaching reading, not a parasitic growth upon it. In these paragraphs we consider the ways in which teachers can strengthen their teaching by the use of diagnostic instruments, and these are not confined to tests.

17.16 What steps do teachers take at present to test their children's reading, and what do they do with the information? No fair generalisation can be made, but there are several pointers. Our survey confirmed existing research findings that the most widely used test in schools is the Schonell Graded Word Reading Test. Table 39 indicates the numbers of schools using certain tests, and it will be seen that this particular one was used by 73 per cent of 936 primary schools. The Burt and Holborn tests, also of the word recognition type, were next in popularity, though even when added together they did not equal Schonell in prevalence. It is interesting to note that the largest schools were more inclined to use certain of the less common tests than were the smallest. The Neale Analysis, for example, was in use in 23 per cent of the schools with over 350 on roll, as against 9 per cent in those with fewer than 71. There have been suggestions that teachers are not sufficiently informed about the range of tests available. This table would seem to give some support to this view, since tests other than Schonell, Burt, and Holborn ranked low in frequency, and the first of these was in use in no fewer than 84 per cent of the largest schools in the sample. On the other hand, it is equally fair to infer that they are the most widely used because teachers find them the most helpful. There is no questioning the usefulness of a word recognition test for certain purposes, but so heavy a reliance on this form does suggest a narrow view of testing. In our opinion it is essential that before any test is applied it should be assessed for its appropriateness for given purposes. For example, the skills required to identify words in isolation are different from those required in making constructive use of context. A child's score on a word recognition test is a helpful piece of information about his level of achievement in one particular skill. But it will not provide any information about the words with which he is having difficulty in his current reading. Nor will it give an accurate picture of his ability to discriminate between particular sounds, or to link sounds with letters, or to understand phonic rules. It can be inferred from the child's performance in the test that he has this or that degree of ability to discriminate visually between word shapes, and very likely between letter shapes. But in itself that is insufficient information. A low score is a helpful indicator that a weakness exists and that the child needs help, but in order to decide what specific help is needed the teacher needs more precise information.

17.17 In another section of the questionnaire teachers were asked whether they tested the child before he moved from one book to the next. 88 per cent of the infant teachers and 77 per cent of the junior teachers said they did. It is likely that the manner of testing here was closely related to the intention, and that it took the form of hearing the child read. Ability to cope with one book would thus be the criterion for being allowed to progress to a more difficult one. There is independent evidence to show that this is in fact the most prevalent method employed by teachers, particularly those in infant schools. Where a graded reading scheme is in use the system has the virtue of simplicity and logic. But for purposes of diagnosis it is, of course, of little value simply to record the titles or numbers of books a child has read. All this tells the teacher in effect is that the child is or is not able to cope with a certain book at a particular level in a particular scheme. Different reading schemes may have at any given level different words in a different quantity arranged in a different complexity of sentence structure. In short, the teacher is not able to generalise from this relatively crude measure about the child's reading ability, still less identify his weakness. However, there is one great virtue in this method of assessing a child's progress; it means that the teacher regularly hears him read aloud. This is one of the most valuable techniques at the teacher's disposal, but the indications are that its diagnostic possibilities are largely unrealised. In research carried out in infant schools Goodacre (6) found that when listening to children read only one in five teachers recorded particular errors and only one in ten a knowledge of letter 'sounds'.

17.18 There is no doubt of the importance attached in schools to the practice of hearing children read. In our survey we asked how often during a week children of different ability read to the teacher. The results were as follows:

These figures reveal many points of interest, the most obvious of which is that teachers extensively use the process of hearing children read as a means of giving practice to those who seem most in need of it and of monitoring their progress. Since so much time is devoted to this important activity the best possible use should be made of it, and this means that it should be an essential part of the diagnostic process. Our observations showed that this is rarely the case. Most teachers, in striving for fluency, set a premium on a quick, confident, and unhesitating delivery of the words. This might well discourage a child from dealing adequately with points of difficulty, and the tendency will be reinforced if the teacher is given to excessive prompting. The technique of hearing children read is at its most effective when errors are seen as miscues which provide a 'continuous window into the reading process'. We have discussed in Part Three the notion of reading as a process of producing the most reliable prediction with the minimum cues available. We are suggesting here that the teacher should be aware when the child is reading of why he is making particular errors. She can then base her teaching on her understanding of the kinds of context cues to which the child is not making an adequate response. The teacher's observation and interpretation are extremely important instruments of diagnosis, but they depend upon a thorough knowledge of what reading is and the sub-skills it involves. We made this same point when discussing language development in the early years. Expert observation by the teacher cannot be valued too highly. It is a major teaching skill, and one upon which all effective diagnosis is founded.

17.19 If a teacher is to plan individual instruction to meet specific needs her first task is to assess the attainment level of every child and provide each with reading material of the right level of readability. This sounds obvious, but it is not common to find the process carried out with the necessary precision. A simple and effective means of approaching the task of matching child and material is the use of informal reading inventories, which are in effect structured observations of reading performance. These consist of passages selected by the teacher from the child's everyday reading material. As the child reads aloud the teacher notes his errors systematically and may ask him questions to assess his understanding of the passage when he has read it again silently. By this means the teacher is able to assess the child's reading ability in relation to a task whose difficulty level he has already established. He is then able to refer him to the right kind of material for further reading. These inventories have a distinct advantage over standardised tests in this situation. They appraise the child's level of ability in a particular task without reference to the performance of others. Norms are unimportant when a teacher is setting out to design a reading programme tailor-made for an individual. The informal reading inventory described below enables the teacher to determine at which of three important levels the child is operating with any given piece of material. This method was developed in the USA, and we do not suggest that the error rates as given here will necessarily apply in the English classroom. They are reproduced to illustrate the principle, which we think a valuable one. At the independent level, the child is able to read aloud in a natural and easy manner, without help from the teacher and with 99 per cent accuracy in word recognition. If the child makes more than one error in a hundred running words or has less than a 90 per cent* comprehension of the passage he is not reading at this level. The teacher can then determine whether he is at the instructional level with this particular material. This involves 95 per cent word recognition, the child making no more than 5 errors in a hundred running words, and he should be able to give a satisfactory answer to 75 per cent of the questions asked by the teacher. At this standard of performance the child can be expected to reach independent level on that material in response to appropriate teaching. Below it he can be said to be operating at the frustration level, and the material is too difficult for him. This is indicated by a word recognition rate of 90 per cent or less (10 or more errors in 100 running words) and a comprehension ability of 50 per cent or below. There will also be revealing behavioural characteristics, such as lack of vocal expression and inaccurate observation of punctuation.

*It will be obvious that the percentages are arbitrary figures which lack the objectivity of those applied to the word recognition rate. They are an indication to the teacher of the extent of correct answers the child gives to questions she considers it reasonable to ask.

17.21 Diagnosis by structured observation requires thoughtful recording if it is to be turned to advantage, and we regard recording as an essential element in the actual teaching process. The record must show which, particular reading skills need most attention if progress is to be ensured; and therefore the precise steps that must be taken to supply it. Our survey showed that records which might be put to this use were to be found in only a minority of schools. Only 37 per cent of the teachers of six year olds and 46 per cent of those of nine year olds said they kept records of persistent individual weaknesses that might require additional help within the school. The figures relating to outside help were even lower at 32 per cent and 38 per cent respectively. However able the teacher, we do not believe that appropriate measures can be developed to meet varying individual needs unless the characteristics of these are sequentially noted. Recording can take many forms, from the keeping of fairly simple notes to elaborate inventories with spaces to check off sub-skills. We are referring here not to the checklist an authority may devise as a standard element of its screening system, but to that which a school may use for its own teaching purposes. Opinions are divided on the respective merits of simple and detailed checklists. Of the one it is said that it has the virtue of being attractively easy to use but the defect of being a relatively blunt instrument; of the other that it is a very precise tool but too time-consuming. This must be a matter for individual choice which will depend in large measure on the extent of the teacher's experience in assessing reading ability. Inventories of skills, e.g. the blending of sounds, will be of considerable help to teachers who want a ready made system of visual checking. Others may prefer to indicate errors on a duplicate copy or an acetate sheet in accordance with an agreed code, e.g. the circling of omissions and the underlining of mispronunciations, showing whether the child uses initial-sound or shape-of-word clues. The important thing is that the recording should be in a form which is helpful to other teachers and can be interpreted expertly and used constructively to advance the child's reading competence. This applies at all levels of ability, and structured observation should be equally at the service of the good reader whose skills can be taken further. A good system of recording will reflect the teacher's planning for each child's reading development. In a classroom organised on 'informal' lines, with a good deal of individual work in progress, effective recording of the kind we have been discussing is of the greatest importance. As pupils grow older there should be increasing opportunities for self-appraisal. Some pupils can be encouraged to develop a responsibility for their own progress, recording their strengths and difficulties, and using the record as an aid towards the growth of higher level skills.

17.22 So far we have been discussing diagnosis in terms of structured observation, which is the first stage in the process. For some children it will be the only stage, since in the hands of the experienced teacher it provides in itself a series of insights sufficient to ensure their progress along a line of potential development. There will be many children, however, whose weaknesses as revealed by this method will call for deeper investigation through the application of tests. There are in existence several diagnostic tests which teachers can use to follow up the initial identification they made through their controlled observation. Some witnesses suggested that there was an acute need for more of these. We recommend that new diagnostic tests (7) should be devised and that these should combine the maximum of practical information with ease of administration. In saying this we would emphasise that the availability of new tests is not a solution in itself. We have already referred to survey results which showed what little use is made of tests other than a very small number of well known ones. None of these tests is designed for diagnosis in the terms we are discussing here. The indications are that many schools are not aware of the variety of diagnostic instruments at present available, or at least are unfamiliar with their use. This has important advisory and in-service training implications, for the ability to diagnose should be part of the professional competence of every primary school teacher. He should have access to a range of tests which he can draw upon where necessary to supplement his own observational procedures.

17.23 The third stage in the diagnostic process is referral to the school doctor and the educational psychologist, and this will involve an even smaller number of children. The relationship between teacher, educational psychologist, and doctor should be such as to encourage a team approach. In the case of most children the teacher will be able to diagnose at a level which will reveal to him the best means of helping the child. But there will be cases where he will find it appropriate to involve other members of the team. Where a child fails to respond to help this should be done without delay, so that further investigations can be carried out and the parent brought into consultation. The first step is to enquire of the school doctor whether there are any medical factors that may be relevant to the child's difficulty in learning to read. This will give the doctor the opportunity to re-examine the child, and the medical information should then be made available to the teacher and to the educational psychologist who will investigate the child's learning difficulties. It may also be helpful in appropriate situations to refer to the educational welfare officer and social worker. It was suggested to us in evidence that at present too many children are referred to the school psychological service with reading problems. It was also pointed out that if psychologists were more readily available for consultation in schools there would be fewer referrals necessary. Our case is that with proper training the teacher should be able to make finer judgements in this matter of bringing in his colleagues, whose participation in the school setting is important. He should be able to perceive that a difficulty revealed by diagnostic test requires further investigation of a kind that lies with them. All too commonly the contacts between teacher and educational psychologist are few, and in the past there has been a tradition of quite distinct functions. It is more profitable to think in terms of different emphases rather than different roles, and in some authorities this concept is taking encouraging shape. This is particularly true where a large-scale venture such as the introduction of a screening programme gives rise to joint planning.

17.24 We believe that educational psychologists have an important part to play in in-service training, notably in helping teachers to a more detailed knowledge of diagnostic techniques. The provision of courses and information for teaching was the subject of a survey (8) carried out in 1973. Authorities were asked whether their Schools Psychological Service or Remedial Education Service had provided during the last year any courses in which the uses and limitations of reading tests formed a significant part. Of the 159 responding only 27 per cent had arranged more than two such courses, and 39 per cent had not provided any at all. At the other end of the range 2 per cent had organised over 30. 33 per cent produced pamphlets or other materials giving information about reading tests, and these ranged from single sheets to 30-page booklets. Only one pamphlet contained a description of informal reading inventories, though it is not known to what extent the use of these was featured in the courses. The survey revealed that 36 per cent of authorities had not provided either courses or pamphlets during the year in question. It would be unjust and incorrect to infer from these results that some Schools Psychological Services and Remedial Education Services do not supply teachers with any information at all about tests. Much useful help in this respect is given in the everyday work of the services, especially when the test results of particular children are being discussed. Moreover, there are other bodies, such as University Departments and Schools of Education, which arrange courses and supply information. Nevertheless, we believe that there is scope for a considerable expansion of in-service training activity in which educational psychologists and teachers are jointly involved. This is not simply a question of the one arranging courses of lectures for the other. It should entail a great deal of practical work and follow-up within schools. Much of this might well be based on actual case studies and evaluation of special teaching programmes designed by teachers and psychologists working together. There is undoubtedly a considerable demand from teachers for in-service training in the field of diagnosis, and it is hoped that the new authorities will find it possible to effect an expansion to meet it.

17.25 Finally, we would again emphasise that the aim of diagnosis is to improve the teaching in relation to the needs of the individual child. An effective system of diagnosis and recording should be an important source of intelligence to head and staff, helping in decisions about individual teaching programmes and the materials and books needed to support them.

ANNEX A: RESULTS OF AN INQUIRY INTO ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES APPLIED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

17.26 Authorities were asked to supply information about any surveys into reading they had carried out during the last three years. They were also asked to give details of any arrangements for identifying at an early age children likely to have reading and language difficulties. 93 of the 146 authorities responded, 56 of them County Boroughs and 37 County Councils. The information they submitted was extremely varied. It ranged from highly detailed statistical analyses to brief general comments. There was an equally wide variation in the methods employed. On the one hand there was the periodical survey, sophisticated in design and employing several different techniques; on the other there was no testing at all, but a policy of general consultation between schools and other agencies, especially the Schools Psychological Service. The variety was also evident in the extent to which specialist help was available to the child experiencing reading difficulties. There was often a relationship between the extent and quality of this help and the criteria applied to discover which children were in need of it.

17.27 Of the 93 authorities which responded, 50 provided empirical data based on objective assessments, i.e. tests given to groups of pupils. A minority had carried out surveys on a regular basis for a number of years, but most had conducted a single survey or one or two pilot studies in individual schools. Some authorities placed the emphasis on directing help to the individual child in need, while others combined this with identifying schools to which extra resources should be allocated. A few were concerned to monitor local standards across the years. The figures reproduced below show that the number of surveys has increased during the period to which our inquiry referred. As the authorities were approached during 1973 the figure for that year is not complete:

In some cases testing was carried out at two or occasionally three stages during a child's schooling, but the most usual practice was for it to occur once early in the primary school. Several authorities had changed the age for testing within the last three years.

17.28 There was wide variety in the tests used; no fewer than 21 different kinds. Several authorities used the same ones on successive occasions; a few employed different tests according to age group in any one year. The following table shows the incidence of use of the various tests:

The individual tests were usually administered by classroom teachers as part of the general assessment of children's progress. In such cases the survey consisted of a request to the schools for the data to be passed to the authority by a specified date. The assessment itself was therefore not necessarily carried out on any particular date or even at roughly the same time in different schools.

17.29 A particularly interesting feature of the inquiry was the variation it revealed in the criteria used for determining reading disability. These are shown below in three basic categories, within each of which different criteria were applied:

(a) Reading disability determined by a discrepancy between reading age and chronological age. The following shows the variety of yardsticks used by different authorities:

(i) Reading age of 12.5 at chronological age of 15
(ii) Reading age of 9.5 at time of 11+ survey
(iii) Reading age of 9.0 at chronological age of 11.06 (4 LEAs)
(iv) Reading age of 8.6 at chronological age of 11.04
(v) Reading age of 8.4 at time of 9+ survey
(vi) Reading age of 8.0 at chronological age of 8.9
(vii) Reading age of 6.0 at time of 8+ survey (7 LEAs)
(viii) Reading age of 6.6 at chronological age of 7.7
(ix) Reading age of 6.0 at chronological age of 7.06
(x) Reading age of 6.9 at chronological age of 7.4
(xi) Reading age of 6.0 at chronological age of 7.3 (3 LEAs)
(xii) Reading age of 6.8 at chronological age of 7.2

(b) Reading disability determined by standardised score, incorporating age allowance:

(i) Less than 90 on the English Picture Vocabulary Test
(ii) Less than 85 on the Young Group Reading Test (2 LEAs)
(iii) Less than 85 on the NFER S.R.A.
(iv) Less than 85 on the Wide Span Reading Test
(v) Less than 80 on the NFER B.D.
(vi) Less than 80 on the NFER S.R.A.
(vii) Less than 80 on the Young Group Reading Test (4 LEAs)
(viii) Less than 80 on the Gates McGintie
(ix) Less than 71 on the Young Group Reading Test

(i) inability to read 10 words at 7+ and 20 words at 8 + on the Schonell Graded Word Reading Test
(ii) 'below chronological age'
(iii) 'non-readers'

These figures reflect the wide variation in choice of criteria as well as the actual proportions of children with reading difficulties. For seven year olds the range is from 'non-readers' (approximately 2 per cent of children, reported twice) to 'below chronological age' (approximately 42 per cent of children, reported once). When the extremes are disregarded it would seem that at this age between 10 per cent and 25 per cent of children are identified as needing special help; by the age of eleven the proportion has reduced to between 7 per cent and 15 per cent.

17.31 Nine of the authorities added that it was also their practice to ascertain the extent of higher standards of reading performance. Six of them used the criterion of reading age, and the proportions of children whose reading age was two years in advance of their chronological age ranged from 5 per cent to 57 per cent. The remainder used the standardised score, taking one standard deviation above the mean as the criterion, i.e. scores of 116 or over. The proportions here ranged from 9 per cent to 20 per cent.

17.32 There was little reference to the effect upon reading age norms of the rise in standards between 1948 and 1968. For example, 'the norm' for children of 7.5 in 1950, defined in terms of the number of words read aloud from a word recognition test, would differ from the 'norm' for children of the same age in 1970. Nor was there reference to the gradual ageing of certain tests, or the steady decline of the reading age concept in favour of the standardised score on a test designed for the age group in question. In some authorities regular testing had been the practice over the last few years, involving the same standardised test, the same mean age of pupils, and the same criteria for interpreting scores. There is no doubt that this consistency rewarded them with superior information for judging the movement of standards and allocating additional resources. Where conditions of administration varied the information carried far less conviction, principally because a history of local norms had not been founded.

17.33 We have said little about the descriptive accounts which were not based on a testing programme. They consisted largely of general statements about the administrative provision for 'remedial' teaching. There was frank acknowledgement that the subjective judgement at work could result in variable standards. On the other hand several authorities felt that the liaison they had developed was adequate to the task and that a survey involving testing would add little useful information. It is clear that there is widespread concern among authorities to help children with learning difficulties and to strengthen those schools where they are in the greatest number. It is equally clear that the methods used to identify these children vary widely in the degree of precision they attain.

ANNEX B: DESCRIPTIONS OF THREE DIFFERENT FORMS OF SCREENING PROCEDURE

17.34 On analysing the replies to our inquiry about screening procedures we invited three authorities to describe in greater detail the methods they had developed. The following are the accounts provided by these authorities:

Example 1: An outer suburban area

As a result of concern about the teaching of reading a working group was established to enquire into the feasibility and timing of a form of standardised testing to reveal children 'at risk' in language development. The group consisted of the authority's inspectors, educational psychologists, and representative primary school heads.

There followed a decision to assess each child early in his life in the infant school in order to avert the depressing experience of cumulative failure which some children face. The working party's first task was to decide on the kind of instrument to be used. Their criteria were: (a) that it should be short and easy to score, (b) that it should give an accurate general picture of each child's abilities and skills, particularly those involved in the reading process, and (c) that it should be sensitive enough to distinguish between slow-learning children and those whose progress gave no cause for concern. The discussion resulted in the design of a checklist to provide a series of structured observations by the teacher. The objects of this checklist were to assess each child's readiness to begin reading, to identify possible areas of learning difficulty, and to provide appropriate help promptly for teacher and child. The working party allowed for the uneven nature of the maturational process. The checklist is made up of a list of 19 simple questions on the child's development in the four main areas most important to the learning process, namely: (a) speech and communication, (b) perceptual-motor, (c) emotional-social and (d) the child's response to learning situations. The teacher gives a 'yes' or 'no' answer to each question, and space is provided for further comment. At various points during the infant years the teacher will again mark up the checklist, thus producing a continuous record of the child's early progress. This material is regarded as an early stage in the process of identifying children 'at risk'. Subsequent stages in the screening procedure are as follows:

(i) Assessment at the end of infant schooling; one further entry is made on the checklist before the child transfers to the junior school. In addition each child attempts the first two pages of the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability.

(ii) At the end of the second year in the juniors the children take the Young Group Reading Test.

(iii) Final testing in the primary school: in the last term of the fourth year all children who have appeared 'at risk' in earlier tests are re-tested on the complete Neale Analysis to determine a reading age, which is entered on each child's record card.

The success of such a scheme depends upon the skill and commitment of those who operate it. In each infant and junior school the authority has appointed one teacher with a special allowance for taking responsibility for screening in the school. These teachers are in contact with centralised resources and training plans, and they are involved in in-service training on screening and diagnostic testing. They provide a focal point for other members of staff, particularly probationary teachers, and they give advice to ensure that the statistical data provided by the screening procedures is used to the best effect by their colleagues. Some have taken on additional and related responsibilities. For example, they advise on book purchase or organise the timetables of part-time teachers. Several have become increasingly interested in language development throughout the school.

The inspectors and educational psychologists have provided in-service training courses to take advantage of these developing interests. For teachers new to screening, the authority provides a series of practical pamphlets, and they have the sustained support of the Primary and English inspectors. A Language Centre has been established as an additional resource. Teachers are welcomed there to visit the standing exhibition of language development materials and equipment, talk over problems with the specialists, prepare their own materials, and hold discussion groups.

17.35 Example 2: A southern county area

The authority introduced screening for the following reasons:

(i) to identify the children needing special help in learning to read;

(ii) to allocate extra teachers where they were most needed;

(iii) to indicate the extent of in-service teacher training need in this aspect of the curriculum;

(iv) to ensure appropriate help for children experiencing learning difficulties - help either through remedial teaching in normal school or through special school attendance.

The second part of the survey is that heads are asked to arrange for administration of the Non-Readers' Intelligence Test (constructed and standardised by Dennis Young, and published by University of London Press) to those children listed as slow learners. This group test is designed to measure verbal intelligence independently of reading skills, so that children experiencing specific reading difficulties will not be handicapped by these when completing it. The aim of this screening test is to distinguish between those slow readers who can probably be helped best by periodic remedial teaching in normal schools and those whose general intellectual handicaps may be such that they will be helped most appropriately through full-time special schooling. Children obtaining low scores on the group intelligence test are assessed developmentally by educational psychologists, who discuss the children's special needs with parents and teachers. After staffing increases in the psychological service it has been found in recent years that the majority of children scoring low on the group intelligence test have already been the subjects of consultation between head teachers and psychologists; consequently this second screen is now regarded as serving no more than a 'mopping up' purpose, and may be discontinued in the future.

Survey returns provide the basis for consultation between remedial advisory teachers, educational psychologists, advisers and education officers, and are taken into account in education officers' allocations of teaching time for the following school year. In some cases, time is allocated specifically for remedial work; in others remedial teaching time is incorporated into a general allocation. Whether or not they receive specific remedial teaching allocations, most heads manage to timetable work in small groups for children in need of special help. These groups are often conducted by qualified married women who have returned to teaching part-time. At the beginning of 1974, with the county school population at approximately 81,000, specific remedial teaching allocation for primary schools was about the equivalent of 30 full-time teachers.

Although word recognition tests are judged to be useful in identifying slow learners they are of little value in providing teachers with practical guidance on teaching methods appropriate for particular children. An important feature of arrangements for helping children with reading difficulties has been the provision of regular in-service training sessions. Through these courses, conducted mainly by the county's two remedial advisory teachers, teachers have been helped to make use of tests designed to diagnose children's reading difficulties and to link their findings with appropriate teaching methods. To complement these courses, educational psychologists and remedial advisory teachers have together produced a series of booklets detailing examples of diagnostic and teaching techniques.

17.36 Example 3: An inner city area

The authority has an extensive remedial service, provided partly in special centres and classes, partly by allocating extra teachers to individual schools, and partly through peripatetic teachers. Over the past two years the school psychological service has provided a series of in-service training workshop courses in the assessment and 'remediation' of specific reading difficulties.

The extensive study of case histories in these courses underlined the great importance of the initial identification of children in need of special help. An equally important factor was the increasing responsibility taken by the remedial teachers for initial assessment and advisory work in schools. If the special services are to be used with maximum efficiency and if help is to be given at the appropriate time it is essential that such children be identified early by means of a systematic screening procedure.

One of the educational psychologists introduced a screening instrument to identify children with learning problems. Its purposes may be defined as follows:

1. To provide a profile of the individual child's abilities as a guide to his educational needs.

2. To provide a continuous monitoring of pupil standards - possibly at three different age levels, e.g. final year of infant school; mid-junior; and first year secondary level.

3. To provide a basis of comparison when evaluating various educational methods.

4. To identify those children who may be 'at risk' in the learning situation and those requiring further diagnostic investigation or an adaptation of educational programmes.

5. To provide some standardised information about general levels of competence. Such information might help teachers, particularly subject specialists, to start with realistic expectations about pupils' levels of performance and so avoid presenting of oral and written material beyond their level of comprehension.

It is intended to run in-service training courses and to produce a videotape programme on the administration of the screening procedure. These will be followed up by further teachers' courses and by published handbooks on planning educational programmes relevant to the needs of the pupils. The psychologists and the remedial teachers working with them will carry out further investigations of children identified as 'at risk' by the initial screening. These children may require remedial help within the school or at local remedial centres. Profiles will be provided of pupils' areas of strength and weakness at an early age, and teaching programmes within the school will be adapted accordingly. It is hoped that these measures will prevent the development of some types of early learning difficulty. This will allow specialist services to concentrate on pupils with severe problems which fall outside the scope of ordinary classroom programmes.

References

1. Children with Specific Reading Difficulties. HMSO 1973.

2. See The Role of the Health Visitor in Relation to Speech Development The College of Speech Therapists.

3. See Speech Therapy Services HMSO: 1972.

4. Child Welfare Centres: a report of the sub-committee of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee of the Central Health Services Council HMSO: 1967.

5. Davie R, Butler N, and Goldstein H From Birth to Seven A report of the National Child Development Study. Longmans: 1972.

6. Goodacre E Hearing Children Read Centre for the Teaching of Reading: Reading University School of Education: 1972.

7. An up to date review of diagnostic tests currently available in this country and the USA is to be found in Reading Tests and Assessment Techniques PD Pumfrey. ULP: 1974.

8. Pumfrey PD The contribution of LEA Schools' Psychological Services and Remedial Education Services to the provision of courses on, and pamphlets concerning, the uses and limitations of reading tests: a survey of current practice in England and Wales University of Manchester: 1973.