[senco-forum]Acceleread/Accelewrite (was Meaning of Reading Ages)

I can endorse this. I have worked this year with two Year 1 boys. One of
them was not even certain of the reading direction at the start of the
year. He would look at a consonant in a word, either at the beginning or
the end of that word, and guess wildly at what the word might be, as
long it started with the sound of the single letter he had recognised.
He did not understand the difference between words and letters.
He is now confidently working his way through a structured scheme of
largely decodeable books (with a smattering of high frequency words he
has learned, even though they are not yet decodeable to him). He has
followed a combination of phonemic awareness training, the reading
scheme work books and reading books, some games with high frequency
words, and Acceleread/Acclewrite. His reading and spelling is now in the
upper average range (I forget exactly what percentile, and this should
be treated with some caution as he is only one year inside the range for
the test in question). Still, it looks very promising I think.
Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
[mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of The Bodiens
Sent: 21 June 2006 14:55
To: senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Subject: RE: [senco-forum] Meaning of Reading Ages

The comments on when good quality teaching of reading is required are
wonderful to see in print...  my teaching experience of illiterate Year
8
students firmly influenced my opinion in exactly the same direction.
This
year we have moved forwards with taking four children from each year 1
class
who had learned their initial sounds and who had the concept of blending
but
who were not applying this to their decoding as well as most of the rest
of
the class.  The TAs have been trained by me to use Acceleread
Accelewrite
(thank you Martin Miles and Vivienne Clifford, for such a useful
programme).
I am just marking up the evaluations now.  One boy has progressed in
spelling by 15 standard points.  Others marked so far are less of a jump
but
still improvements.  Anecdotally the TAs and teachers are reporting more
confident children who are willing to have a go at blending and
segmenting
where they used to just not do it outside of phonics lessons.

The TAs have learned useful skills they will carry forwards as they hear
children read, the children have benefited, the teachers are happy.
Parents
meetings next term, I think.  (We break up next week - far too hot out
here
to think now).

Philippa

-----Original Message-----
From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
[mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of Eddie
Carron
Sent: 21 June 2006 15:28
To: Mary Kelly; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Subject: Re: [senco-forum] Meaning of Reading Ages

Mary

To focus on the topic of 'appropriate grading of books' I produced and 
published a series of graded titles and the grading methodology was
entirely

of my own devising.- I graded the titles, not on the basis of their
decoding

complexity but on the basis of their intellectual complexity. For
example, 
there are titles which in phonetic terms are not particularly
challenging 
but some at least of the storyline is implied rather than literally
stated 
and cracking inferrential comprehension is perhaps the greatest barrier
to 
reading progress that any lower ability child has to overcome. What good
is 
it to a child if every word is regular and decodable - if s/he cannot 
assimilate the intellectual content then s/he cannot read it however 
regularly the content is expressed. All teachers routinely make personal

judgements about the intellectual suitablity of a particular title for a

particular child but I know of no way of formalising that professional
skill

into any type of 'box-ticking' score.

My personal experience leads me to the quite depressing view that where
a 
child does not acquire good reading skills before the age of say 9, that

although that child's measureable reading-age may later on be (and often
is)

brought into line with his/her chronological age and their literal 
comprehension similarly enhanced, it is generally the case that their 
inferrential comprehension of text remains stubbornly impaired. Such 
children can become functionally literate and read some things quite 
competently but will probably never get stuck into a Harry Potter book
let 
alone The Grapes of Wrath or Catch 22!  For these reasons. I am strongly
in 
favour of providing much better training for teachers of reading with 
greater emphasis on the earliest stages of the Educational process.
Those of

us who work (or have worked) in secondary school learning support 
departments are largely concerned with locking stable doors after horses

have bolted.  Infant and Reception Class teachers are far and away the
most 
important teachers in the entire Education system for it is they that
build 
the foundations for everything that transpires subsequently in school.
We 
should be putting in place appropriate rewards to attract the brightest
and 
best to these crucial positions. Every infant school should have atleast
one

specifically trained 'teacher of reading' rather than simply, general 
purpose teachers for infant schools.

Eddie C.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mary Kelly" <mary.kelly4 at ntlworld.com>
To: <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [senco-forum] Meaning of Reading Ages

>
> Dear Eddie,
>
> But you speak as if a child moves from being a non-reader to being a
> competent reader in one leap. The proportion of decodeable words will
> depend not just on the text but on the competence of the reader. My
> point is that the "right" level of difficulty for a child who is
> practising reading is one where about 90% of the words can be read
> unaided. That's where enough context is comprehensible to aid
> recognition of the rest. When the child is much more competent the
words
> will be recognisable without context - all of them, bar any word the
> person may be encountering for the first time. Even then, as you
rightly
> say, most will be decodeable.
> And the assistance of a computer is only available at certain times
and
> in certain settings. There is no substitute for feeling one can do
> something all by oneself. I never mentioned reading aloud, though I am
> quite sure that we voice words internally as we read.
> Anyway, enough of this. J Adams is far better at describing how
children
> learn to read than I am!
> Best wishes,
> Mary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eddie Carron [mailto:eddiecarron at btconnect.com]
> Sent: 20 June 2006 18:30
> To: Mary Kelly; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] Meaning of Reading Ages
>
> Mary
>
> I formally and rigidly define reading as 'the retrievel and
assimilation
> of
> the intellectual content of text' and it is against this definition
that
> I
> base all of my conclusions vis a vis reading.  This means that I (for
> example)  I consider the act of 'reading aloud' as being quite
different
>
> from the process of reading as I have already defined it.  This is
> perhaps
> where my perception of the reading process differs from most other
> teachers
> whose views I nevertheless respect although I may not always
communicate
>
> this fact very clearly..
>
> You ask 'What meaning can you get from a text where 10% of the words
> cannot
> be decoded?"   I do not accept that such a text exists.  Certainly
there
>
> will be texts where 10% of the words are not regularly phonetic - I
> think we
> must have a different idea of what is involved is decodable.  Those
who
> have
> a very fundament view of synthetic  phonics would (probably) claim
that
> all
> words are decodable if the child has been taught appropriately. My own
> view
> is a little less dogmatic. It has been my experience that children in
> secondary schools with even quite substantial reading deficits are
able
> to
> voice the sounds represented by all letters and common alphabetic
> digraphs
> (oo - ee - ou etc) but are not able to either decode or synthesize
them
> into
> recognisable words. This means that conventional synthetic phonics
which
>
> have been developed for initial teaching of reading are not (in my
view)
>
> appropriate for secondary schools.
>
> There is a sense in which context always has to play a part in
decoding
> - an
> extreme example of this would be the sentence 'The text she has to
read
> to
> the teacher has already been read by another child'  Only an
> appreciation of
> the intellectual content of this sentence makes it possible to
> ennunciate
> both occurences of the word 'read' accurately.
>
> Without my mentioning specific resources, you will know that there are
> resources where it is irrelevant that many of the words are irregular
> because the computer will happily assist by voicing the unfamiliar or
> undecodable words for the child and that thereafter the child will be
> able
> to recognise them without difficulty unless he or she has a very
> specific
> physical or intellectual impairment.
>
> I have often expressed the fairly controversial view that since
reading
> is a
> skill,  all that it takes to make a good reader is lots of reading
> practice
> and I hope you would agree that I have done a good deal of practical
> research to support that view. This remains my view.
>
> Eddie C.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mary Kelly" <mary.kelly4 at ntlworld.com>
> To: <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:07 PM
> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] Meaning of Reading Ages
>
>
>>
>> But Eddie, you of all people, would be the first to define reading as
>> gaining meaning from text? What meaning can be got from a text in
> which
>> more than about 10% of the words cannot be decoded?
>> Mary
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
>> [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of Eddie
>> Carron
>> Sent: 20 June 2006 16:11
>> To: senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
>> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] Meaning of Reading Ages
>>
>> The thread began with a question about the meaning of the term
> 'reading
>> age'
>> and to bring my own contributions to a close . . . .
>>
>> Like most special needs practioners, I use 'reading-ages' a lot
simply
>> because it is quick and easy to use and tells me something about a
>> child's
>> reading skills at that particular moment in time. As someone who
vists
>> about
>> 30 to 40 schools every year all over the UK and has done for many
> years,
>> I
>> am all too aware however, that the term 'reading-age' is very often
> not
>> well
>> understood by those who use it and this does concern me because,
> unlike
>> many
>> childrens' reading difficulties,  it is something that is quite
easily
>> put
>> right.
>>
>> Many decades ago when I was a trainee teacher, I was 'trained' to the
>> idea
>> that 'children love big words' hence the then Junior School
> fascination
>> with
>> dinosaurs with names like Triceratops, Ankylosauraus, Tyrranosaurus
> Rex
>> etc
>> During my teaching practices however, I was told by real teachers
that
>> instead of using 'big words' such as 'multiplication' or subtraction'
> I
>> was
>> to use the simpler terms 'timesing' , 'takes aways' , addsup and
>> 'sharing'
>> because children did not like 'big words'    If nothing else, this
>> apparent
>> contradiction taught me to treat all of the Educational sacred cows
> with
>> a
>> significant pinch of salt.    I shudder to think what 'reading-ages'
>> would
>> be assigned to the various Harry Potter titles yet I know 9 year olds
>> and 59
>> year olds who devour them with equal enthusiasm.
>>
>> The intellectual content of a book is always the primary motivator -
> not
>> any
>> artificially derived 'reading-age' based on average sentence and word
>> length.  I know that I often find myself in the position of simply
not
>> being
>> able to put a book down until I have read the last word of the last
> page
>> -
>> and I know that that is a feeling that children with reading
>> difficulties
>> have never, and may never, experience. What such children need is a
>> means of
>> allowing them access to that intellectual content so that it can work
>> its
>> motivational magic on them!   Many hours of TV watching give children
>> access
>> to an enormous receptive vocabulary which, (provided they have no
>> specific
>> physical or intellectual impairment) they will understand, if they
can
>> only
>> crack the text form of these words - hence my commitment to synthetic
>> phonics.  Where children are provided with an appropriate means of
> doing
>>
>> this, they become readers - that is surely an already, well
> established
>> fact
>> which even the most dedicated sceptic would accept!
>>
>>
>>
>> Eddie C.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Julie Bullivant" <jbullivant at newent.gloucs.sch.uk>
>> To: <mary.kelly4 at ntlworld.com>; <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:14 AM
>> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] Meaning of Reading Ages
>>
>>
>>>I saw a book rep yesterday who showed me some books with high
interest
>>> levels but with reading ages of less than 8 years. She couldn't tell
>> me
>>> who had "attached" this level or on what basis and judging by some
of
>>> the vocabulary used they were not suitable for my weaker readers
with
>>> similar reading ages! Does anyone know of a reading scheme suitable
>> for
>>> secondary age students? I am interested in looking at one.
>>> Julie
>>>
>>> ----Original Message----
>>> From: mary.kelly4 at ntlworld.com
>>> Date: 20-Jun-2006 07:24
>>> To: <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
>>> Subj: RE: [senco-forum] Meaning of Reading Ages
>>>
>>> The progress is going to come from children being able to read and
>>> understand the texts they are supposed to learn from. In the case of
>>> the
>>> texts I refer to, the learning objective is not reading, but
learning
>>> about the content of the text, its construction, purpose, the use of
>>> tenses, adverbs etc. etc. And even if its purpose were to improve
>>> reading, then an instructional level of text would be one where the
>>> child can read about 90% of words without support.
>>> Do not imagine that readability is the same thing as sophistication.
> I
>>> have also looked at Skellig - an award-winning children's book - and
>>> its
>>> readability comes out at around 10. And, surprise surprise, children
>>> read and enjoy it! Yet the ideas in there are very sophisticated
ones
>>> about loss and recovery.
>>> Good writing does not make for complexity but, rather, for clarity.
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Mary
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Eddie Carron [mailto:eddiecarron at btconnect.com]
>>> Sent: 19 June 2006 22:45
>>> To: Mary Kelly; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
>>> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] Meaning of Reading Ages
>>>
>>> But if the 'readability' of books for 8 year olds is going to be 8
-
>>> where
>>> is the progress going to come from?
>>>
>>> Eddie C.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Mary Kelly" <mary.kelly4 at ntlworld.com>
>>> To: <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
>>> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:27 PM
>>> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] Meaning of Reading Ages
>>>
>>>
>>>> And I've been looking at the readability levels of proprietary
>>> literacy
>>>> packages in use at my school and finding, for example, material for
>>> 8
>>>> year-olds with a readability of 14! I think publishers should be
>>> more
>>>> responsible than this!
>>>> Mary
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
>>>> [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of
barbara
>>>> Sent: 19 June 2006 20:37
>>>> To: 'Sue Wright'; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
>>>> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] Meaning of Reading Ages
>>>>
>>>> When I thought about going along these lines I asked local primary
>>>> school if
>>>> the word lists for Literacy strategy were what realistically a
child
>>> at
>>>> end
>>>> of year  1,2 ,3  (of average ability ) could be expected to read
and
>>> was
>>>> told yes -but didn't pursue it as whenI looked at the lists I
>>> reckoned
>>>> that
>>>> my ra 6 7 8 or 9 or whatever kids couldn't have read them.
>>>> Alternative view is that access to secondary curriculum requires a
>>>> reading
>>>> age of more than 9, to be able to operate effectively in year 7
>>> requires
>>>> reading age of 11 ( and so on ) - crunch is that access is
virtually
>>> non
>>>> existent for written material if reading age is below 9 which is
the
>>>> message
>>>> these staff need to be sold barbara ht
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
>>>> [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of Sue
>>> Wright
>>>> Sent: 19 June 2006 20:26
>>>> To: senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
>>>> Subject: [senco-forum] Meaning of Reading Ages
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have always used reading ages on my Learning support register but
>>> was
>>>> taken aback today when a Head of Department pointed out that as she
>>> has
>>>> no
>>>> children of her own, and has never taught in primary schools she
>>> found
>>>> it
>>>> difficult to guage what I meant by a reading age of x years. What
>>> would
>>>> the
>>>> student be able to do? At this busy time of year I need to save
>>> myself
>>>> another job. Is there a guide sheet in print anywhere that I could
>>> pass
>>>> on.It's actualy quite a difficult concept as every student is an
>>>> individual.
>>>> Any ideas?
>>>>  Sue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>> Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage
with
>>>> All
>>>> New Yahoo! Mail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date:
>>>> 16/06/2006
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date:
>>>> 16/06/2006
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date:
>>> 19/06/2006
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date:
>>> 19/06/2006
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ..
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date:
>> 19/06/2006
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date:
>> 19/06/2006
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date:
> 19/06/2006
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date:
> 19/06/2006
>
>
> 

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date:
20/06/2006

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date:
20/06/2006

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date:
20/06/2006

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date:
20/06/2006