[senco-forum]Developinglistening skillsinsecondarypupils-Eddie'sCD

The whole APD thing has raised my awareness, but that happened a year 
ago (estimate). If i need more information I could find it. I don't need 
to be told ten times daily. I have better memory skills than that.

I used to read almost every contribution made to the forum (I missed out 
the secondary exam arrangements ones as they dont affect me and I am 
unable to help, and I missed out ones from a certain contributer a 
couple of years ago because they drove me mad with the patronising, 
slagging off of teachers etc) I learnt a lot from the postings I read 
and perhaps sometimes even helped others with my occasional two-penneth.

I now NEVER contribute (except now obviously) and usually delete all 
mails without reading them because of the long term tone and 
repetativeness of what i see as the majority of mailings. The only thing 
that has stopped me leaving is the promise that if i need help I can ask 
for it and will get it (after i have read one perhaps, but then deleted 
the 99% APD responses)I am bored. It is a waste of my valuable (and 
voluntary) time. The ONLY reason I read the below mailing was because it 
was from Rik who I have always found to be sensible, balanced, helpful 
and informative (and sometimes funny)

If I have 'switched off'. How many others have? What a shame.

Probably won't even bother to read any reponses to this. If I do I will 
pick and choose the ones I read. Which is a shame because this USED TO 
BE a valuable resourse.

Debbie (whose hair is now purple and not pink- should be purplesenco!)

Senco Rik wrote:

 > Dear Dolfrog -
 > I read the APD booklet - along with other references, as it
 > has I hope obvious interest to me as a teacher for children
 > in a specialist speech & language school.  Hopefully saving
 > others the time, the definition you refer to is, I believe,
 > the following:
 >
 > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 > http://www.ihr.mrc.ac.uk/products/leaflets.php#apd
 > What is Auditory Processing Disorder?
 > Most of us hear well and so don't give much thought to how
 > we hear. Hearing starts with a very complex set of actions
 > within the outer, middle and inner
 > ear. These actions send the sounds to our brain, and our
 > brain interprets them so we can understand. For example, it
 > tells us the whistling we hear is a bird singing. This is
 > what we call LISTENING. The medical term for it is AUDITORY
 > PROCESSING. When a child's ears are working well, but the
 > child cannot understand the sounds they hear, the child may
 > have an 'auditory processing disorder' (abbreviated to
 > 'APD').
 > Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 >
 > So far, so good - the booklet has given one definition of
 > "listening".
 > Unfortunately, my dictionary, quite a reputable one, has a
 > different definition - "Act of concentrating on hearing
 > something, taking heed, paying attention". Eddie Carron has
 > given another, which you appear to have taken a dislike to.
 >
 > My own personal working definition is "making sense of what
 > you hear". Many of my speech/language impaired children can
 > "hear well" - they can hear quiet sounds at many frequencies
 > - but are unable to filter out other noises and/or remember
 > sounds for long enough to comprehend, or process the sounds
 > fast enough etc. Rather like a Head Teacher I worked with
 > once, who would ask us for our views and then say "Please
 > tell me what you think: I will hear you, but may perhaps
 > choose not to listen"!
 >
 > Language is an organic, changing phenomenon - and part of
 > its interest is that we all define words and concepts in
 > different ways. Most of us accept that we should not have a
 > "thought police" to launch a diatribe against anyone who
 > happens not to share our own particular definition of a
 > given word or concept. Your email feels to me, perhaps
 > incorrectly, as a diatribe written by someone who has
 > read(heard) but not listened
 >
 > Are you saying that my dictionary, and my own working
 > definition, are each confusing for everyone else with whom I
 > wish to communicate, given that neither concur exactly with
 > the APD booklet definition above?
 >
 > I happen to believe that APD exists. Granted, I also think
 > it is a jargon three-letter acronym equivalent to a
 > phenomenon that was certainly around when I was learning
 > about speech and language: Then, we called it "receptive
 > aphasia", and reading the booklet it is at least 95% the
 > same thing, though at least APD is easier to spell!
 >
 > Your email to Eddie below sounds to me more like a diatribe
 > against anyone who might wish to disagree with "APD is
 > King". You also seem to have managed, like Aly, to "hear but
 > not listen" to what Eddie is writing.  I do agree with Eddie
 > on one thing. He states:
 >
 > "I suspect that her motive is simply to get the word APD on
 > the screen of often as possible. This is a harmful and not a
 > helpful ploy which is damaging the undoubted cause of APD. I
 > know that many other, former and current list contributors
 > have expressed the same sentiment."
 >
 > As a current list occasional contributor I will openly agree
 > with him. I would be a natural supporter for APDUK but for
 > the tone of so many of the emails from yourself and Aly. It
 > is difficult to "listen" to your useful postings on APD when
 > we "hear" so much else ("noise") in your emails.  I do hope
 > that you will moderate your "thought police" controlling
 > tendencies before I, too, add you to the "junk sender" list.
 >
 > Cheers
 >
 > Rik
 > (Original postings snipped, as they are at least a yard
 > (almost a metre for younger colleagues) long)!
 >
 >