One of the premier Canadian scientists who has done a large amount of research in this field feels Arrowsmith is selling unproven theories-she has strong opinions on it as quoted in the Vancouver Sun.
Read Dr.Linda Siegel`s comments at UBC-
Much better to go with research approved in thinking by most scientists-Read Overcoming Dyslexia as well as the scientific research arm of the International Dyslexia Association in Baltimore Maryland.
There was also an outfit in England that thought cerebral balancing was the answer-they were even on 60 Minutes.The research was completely negated through scientific study.
While I completely believe in neuroplasticity,

One should be extremely cautious here-

Hi Jo-Anne,
This is Howard, the author of Brain School and Director/Founder of Eaton Arrowsmith School.  The issue with the Canadian scientists that you mention is focused on the issue of early reading acquisition. I could go into the validity of her study and debate this issue, but this does little good.  The reality of the problem is that educators and neuroscience have a gap in their conceptual understanding of what each field is doing.  The reality is that neuroplasticity is a proven fact in the field of Neuroscience - as is neurogensis.  The Arrowsmith Program looks at reading intervention based on cognitive capacities required for sound/symbol acquisition. The Arrowsmith Program is an advocate for phonics instruction, and in fact we use phonics for our students.  What we often find is student who have tried to learn to read through a phonetic method, who don’t.  Or, who struggle with reading speed and comprehension.  As well, the Arrowswmith Program address the various learning disabilities that exists due to the wide range of neurological weaknesses that each child can have.  I would be thrilled to have you visit us in Vancouver to come in and discuss what we are doing.  The Arrowsmith Program supports phonics based intervention and deals with many other learning problems. That invitation goes to anyone reading this message.  The key to bridging the gap between education and neuroscience is effective communication.

Sincerely,
Howard Eaton, Ed.M.

As one who is living in a rural location without any private or alternative services for my child, cognitive science and the advances being made for LD children saved my child from awful handwriting to readable handwriting. So my child was no longer busy with trying to remember how to form a b or close an a, and could put the time spent on trying to remembering formation of letters, to the actual words on paper. I decided to used stencils and tracing at home. Everyday she spent at least 15 minutes doing activities that was cloak in fun. I noticed improvements in about a month, and content of her writing started to improved. By three months, her hand writing problems were solve, except for minor things for letters J, X, Y and Z. At the next teacher interview, the teacher asked the first question, on what I was doing at home to improve her hand writing. I told her of my home made experiment and since than the school has allowed the used of stencils. Before that, stencils were banned from the school. I have no idea why, but was one of the many things that were either banned or discouraged to use.

My child had other problems as well as the low phonemic awareness, that needed attention.On the Arrowsmith site, Barbara Arrowsmith talks about her life, especially her school life. I too had trouble reading analog clocks, and I really did not conquered learning time by analog clock until I was in my late teens. My youngest had the same problem learning to tell time by analog clocks, In fact I thought it was hopeless, until I started to adapt some of the research from the cognitive field. By the age of 12, she was on her way but it is not automatic even now. But at least when someone says it is 5 to, she knows it is 5 minutes to the hour. Although reading and writing instruction is far more important, I am glad I spent the time on the side issues. If anything, it give my child the confidence to tackle the reading and writing, and in different ways it actually help to improve reading and writing, by improving a small cognitive function.

I would not dismiss the Arrowsmith program, because it rings true for adults with learning disabilities. Or at least it rings true to me, especially reading clocks. There was a few times I left school early, because I thought school was over with. I read the clock wrong, and my Mom covered for me. I even still do it once a while, when I am very tired or under extreme stress. When it happens, I have to check my computer or the microwave to confirm time. Most times I’m wrong, and the microwave is right. However, I can deal with that, because the most important thing was done, teaching me to read and write well. Good reading and writing instruction never goes out of style, and yet in our public education system, how many like me end up learning how to read and write well.

Myself and two academic researchers decided to get a copy of Siegel’s 2003 evaluation of the Arrowsmith Program.  These are the findings from our review:

http://www.eatonarrowsmithschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Eaton-Review-of-Siegel-2003-Arrowsmith-Program-Evaluation.pdf

As a parent, I concur with your conclusions. Given that my youngest child, benefited greatly by the cognitive exercises arranged at home. Improving the cognitive processes, makes learning easier. It does wonders for sequencing processes as well, and it does aid in strengthening the strengths such as reasoning. My youngest child has very strong reasoning skills, but one would never know it, because she could not expressed herself on paper, let alone be able to read the writing on the paper.

For the LD kids, they need the direct systematic instruction in reading, writing and numeracy areas and the cognitive exercises go hand in hand, to ensure the actual learning of knowledge occurs.

Mr. Eaton - you state in the paper - “The assumption is that these neurological
weaknesses are fixed and unchangeable. This assumption in the field of Learning Disabilities is evident when one looks at the definitions of a learning disability put forward by national associations dedicated to this disability. Often, definitions of learning disabilities highlight that they are life-long. The work of the Arrowsmith Program puts this statement in doubt. If learning disabilities are caused by neurological weaknesses, and neurological weaknesses can be strengthened (neuroplasticity), does it not hold that it is possible to reduce the severity of a learning disability through cognitive training? The concept of neuroplasticity is one that should be applied to the field of Learning Disabilities.”

But no, the public K to 12 education system, are determined to keep the LD students at the bottom of the achievement charts, sentenced to a life time of poor reading levels, but worse yet, sentenced the LD students to a lifetime of being part of the high risked population with poor life outcomes.

Take heart, Mr Eaton - at the Children of the Code web site - cognitive training, neuroplasticity is all linked to research based instructional practices - so all children can learned without shame.