Reynolds, Wang, and Walberg (1992) surveyed a broad field of more than 100 "experts" in learning disabilities, including university faculty, to determine by consensus the requisite knowledge and skills that should distinguish teachers of children with learning handicaps. The most important aspects of remedial teaching valued by the experts consulted included such procedural basics as time on task, time spent in direct instruction on basic academic skills, provision of direct feedback, appropriate error correction, monitoring of task difficulty, and individualization. Although these principles of instruction are certainly important, mastery of structural language elements (phonemes, syllables, morphemes), the way they are represented in print, and how children learn them, were not designated as critical for teacher competence. It is thus easy to see why teachers may obtain certification without acquiring knowledge of the language content and processes critical to reading and spelling acquisition. rest of article:  www.greenwoodinstitute.org/resources/resmiss.html Encouraging this lack of content specificity are the non-categorical certification practices of more than half the states in the U.S. Teachers take three-hour courses such as "Teaching Students with Learning Problems" rather than specific and more extensive courses on the remediation of reading disability (Cranston-Gringas and Mauser 1992). Admittedly, categorical training programs giving certificates in learning disabilities and other handicaps have not been shown to benefit children with handicapping conditions more than non-categorical preparation (Marston 1987); however, their content may be no more specific than that of the general certification programs. Certificate programs in learning disabilities usually do not require teachers to be experts in the way print corresponds to speech. At present, motivated teachers are often left to obtain specific skills in teaching phonology, phonetics, orthography, and other language skills on their own by seeking out workshops or specialized instructional manuals. Professional organizations such as the International Reading Association (International Reading Association 1978) and the Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children have issued competency lists for teachers of children with reading/spelling difficulty to guide professional preparation, but these seem to contribute to the diffusion of teacher education. These lists usually include, among many other skills, a few competencies in understanding language development and language disorders, but not its specific relationships to reading, spelling and writing. Typically there is no designated level of competence in knowledge of the oral and written language itself. Further, the lists of competencies are so extensive as to discourage intensive focus and study in depth. (Anderson et al. 1985). The level of language knowledge necessary for teaching a person with language processing difficulties, however, exceeds what can be learned from casual or cursory training.
		The Century of Miseducation of American Teachers
		See also: Dyslexia Myths
		An instructional method based on the Orton-Gillingham approach is the only treatment recommended by the International Dyslexia Association.  See our links page for programs providing training in an Orton-based curriculum.
		http://www.nrrf.org/essay_Explicit_or_Implicit_Phonics.html