A reading intervention programme delivered on a daily basis by trained teaching assistants is an effective intervention for children who show reading delays at the end of their first year in school. However, around one-quarter of the children did not respond to this intervention and these children would appear to need more intensive or more prolonged help to improve their reading skills.

No abstract

This study adds weight to the importance of understanding and supporting teachers' beliefs in their collective efficacy. In particular, this study underlines the need for strategies that will endorse and develop teachers' beliefs in their ability to manage children's behaviour successfully.

In this paper we argue that attempts to distinguish between categories of ‘dyslexia’ and ‘poor reader’ or ‘reading disabled’ are scientifically unsupportable, arbitrary and thus potentially discriminatory. We do not seek to veto scientific curiosity in examining underlying factors in reading disability, for seeking greater understanding of the relationship between visual symbols and spoken language is crucial. However, while stressing the potential of genetics and neuroscience for guiding assessment and educational practice at some stage in the future, we argue that there is a mistaken belief that current knowledge in these fields is sufficient to justify a category of dyslexia as a subset of those who encounter reading difficulties. The implications of this debate for large‐scale intervention are outlined.

The ELS programme provides a cost effective method of boosting 6-year-old children's reading to an average level.