Many parents of children with reading disabilities (and some advocates and attorneys) insist that the Wilson Reading System (Wilson) is the only reading method that can help their child learn to read. They claim it’s the scientifically proven method for overcoming dyslexia and other reading disabilities, and thus the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) supports it.
They’re wrong. And if they take this argument to court, and the school’s experts are well-versed in the research, the school has valid reasons for prefering its methodology, the IEP’s goals and objectives and services are sound, and the hearing officer or judge believes, like most do, that courts should not overturn a school’s decision about methodology, the parents will likely lose.
I have yet to see a compelling body of independent research showing that Wilson is superior to any other method, or that it’s highly effective. Is Wilson hyped? Yes. Is it brilliantly marketed? Yes. Does it work? Sometimes. In general, is it effective? No one knows. But here’s what I know:
- I’ve seen it fail.
- I’ve seen children with reading disabilities reject it out of boredom.
- I’ve seen teachers use it because they were forced to, and it showed in their poor (uninformed) instructional decisions and in the rigid way they used it.
- The federally funded What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) concluded that for beginning reading, the “Wilson Reading System® was found to have potentially positive effects on alphabetics and no discernible effects on fluency and comprehension…. The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Wilson Reading System ® to be small for alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension” (2007, pp. 4, 1). Keep in mind that the word potentially means possibly, not proven.
- The Johns Hopkins’ Best Evidence Encyclopedia reported that the evidence supporting the effectiveness of Wilson was “insufficient” (2009, p. 13)
- I’ve seen it (and other Orton-Gillingham type approaches) succeed when children with reading disabilities were tutored daily, individually or in pairs; the teacher was knowledgeable, skilled, and enthusiastic about teaching reading; the program was intensive and the teachers made it fun for the students; the teachers structured activities to produce moderate challenge and lots of success; the teachers supplemented it with widespread reading and modified the program at the first sign the students were having difficulty. Under these conditions, I’ve seen other programs work just as well.
If you’re a parent who has heard good things about Wilson, and your child has the kind of word identification and decoding problems that Wilson is designed to remediate, and the school and your child’s teachers are knowledgeable about and skilled in using Wilson, request it, but make sure that:
- Your child’s program is built around important goals and objectives that are easily and accurately measured.
- His progress is carefully monitored, at least weekly.
- His program is modified whenever he encounters problems.
- His program is supplemented by other activities that compensate for Wilson’s weaknesses (e.g., interest, reading comprehension).
Keep in mind that your commitment should not be to Wilson or any other reading method, but to your child’s progress, progress that strengthens all his needs, including communication, academic, social, and emotional.
If, however, the school rejects Wilson and insists on an eclectic program or another off-the-shelf commercial program that the teachers are knowledgeable and enthusiastic about, and it’s designed to meet your child’s diagnosed needs, don’t argue about the program. Instead, focus on the previously listed factors. Focus on having
- Your child’s program emphasize important goals and objectives that are easily and accurately measured.
- His progress is carefully monitored, at least weekly.
- His program modified whenever he encounters problems or needs to move ahead.
- His program supplemented by activities that compensate for the program’s weaknesses.
In addition, schedule regular meetings to review the data on his progress, discuss possible program modifications, and discuss how you can buoy his spirits and supplement the school’s efforts. If your child has serious reading problems, it’s reasonable to meet monthly.
For more help on these topics, read chapters 6 and 7 of Reading Disabilities: Beating the Odds. Chapter 6 offers guidance on how to help children with reading disabilities at home; chapter 7 shows how you and the school can monitor progress. Our post of October 17, 2009 sheds additional light on the topic, Should You Believe What You Hear About Reading Programs?
Resources
Margolis, H., & Brannigan, G. G. (2009). Reading Disabilities: Beating the Odds. Voorhees, NJ: Reading2008 & Beyond (www.reading2008.com).
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2009). Effective Programs for Struggling Readers: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University School of Education’s Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education (CDDRE). Retrieved 1/12/10, from http://www.bestevidence.org.
What Works Clearinghouse (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/)
HM © Reading2008 & Beyond
We too have had many parents complain that Wilson Reading did not work for their child — in more cases than not — the child is a right-brained learner — who learns best when they see and experience information.
These students often need a right-brained assessment — that checks to see if they are a right-brained learner — and if they are — they would benefit from a right-brained program that plays to their strengths
The advantages of a right-brained assessment and a right-brained program include:
- Knowing how your child learns — and therefore picking a program that fits your style
- Right-brained learners are more likely to have tracking issues –and the right assessment will pick that up
- Right-brained learners do far better when they are taught to their strengths and are engaged
Thank you for your comment. Please know that from everything I’ve read, I have no confidence in the concepts of right-brained, left-brained learners. Nevertheless, children do better when they see and experience information and they do better when their strengths are engaged. Again, thank you.
How dare you! That’s not what people want to hear.People that have dyslexic children want the one true answer that works for all dyslexics. I know that’s what they want because that’s what everybody selling. They wouldn’t be selling it if that’s not what people wanted.
Let me start over.I just read your 70 posts on dyslexia and except for the concept of music therapy,which I know absolutely nothing about, I have never seen such a clear and informative source of information describing the necessity of proper evaluation and monitoring of progress of the individual to determine reading intervention and maximize chances of success for the individual.
Your quote of “as H. L. Mencken so justifiably said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” ” should be required reading for anyone seeking dyslexia help.
I recently added your link to What Works Clearinghouse to my collection of free dyslexia help links of different programs,products, services and information that I post on my website. I’m also adding a link to your blog,the first blog that I’ve added.
I market a product of visual dyslexia glasses and try to slip through the cracks of needing proof of scientific evidence of effectiveness. In a self-serving manner, I limit my definition of visual dyslexics to those that can describe visual problems that make reading difficult. That is really a marketing advantage because my customers can self evaluate the condition and the need for my product.
I also took a different approach,you could say a scientific sledgehammer approach, and made universal visual dyslexia glasses to eliminate the need for a personal evaluation. Not as elegant a solution as determining a specific color for a specific dyslexic but on the other hand it does deal with multiple wavelengths problems that are difficult to identify by personal evaluation and cause failures by other methods.
I see 2 legitimate concerns of the requirements for dyslexia interventions to be scientifically proven.The first concern is that the wrong intervention wastes valuable time, perhaps months, and can be emotionally draining. The second concern is financial in that financial resources may be drained before the proper intervention is tried.
Neither of those concerns actually apply to my product.The value of my product is mostly determined instantaneously. Put the glasses on and the described visual problem goes away, take them off and the visual problem returns.Even for visual dyslexics whose problems get worse over the reading interval , the longest time one would’ve read at a stretch is the time needed for evaluation.
As for the financial concern,I offer a money back guarantee for any reason although I do make the customer pay for return shipping.
In my opinion, most dyslexia products and interventions not only use a business philosophy of “take the money and run” but they do it with callous disregard. People who provide dyslexia interventions develop the expertise to fairly accurately predict who will and will not benefit from their interventions it is just not in their financial interest to limit sales to those who will succeed.
To me, science is the ability to make accurate predictions from a given set of circumstances.Since visual dyslexics are a minority of dyslexics( about 10%) research studies on visual dyslexia using dyslexics as a group dilutes the results. Preselecting for visual dyslexics makes it difficult to find enough subjects because only 1-1.5% of the population has visual dyslexia.
I’ll leave this long post with a quote I saw the other day “the reason that there are so many dyslexia experts is because charlatan is so hard to spell.”