[senco-forum] Re Literacy

Hi Eddie

I have until now purposely stayed away from this thread, to avoid the
accusations which usually follow most of my contributions.

Most of what you have stated has some credibility, but the problems creep in
when you use the words we must assume. That is pure guesswork and where much
of the education system falls down, especially for those who have problems
with the phonic based communication system preferred by the majority of our
culture. Those who have no problems with this cultural communication option
apparently find it very difficult to understand how others may have problems
with a form of communication which they are comfortable with, and prefer not
to try to understand the problems that other may have and even deny them the
option of having teaching programs that my help them work around these
problems. This may not be your personal belief but it comes across from many
who follow the creed you are preaching. 
There are a large group some 30% of the population who are natural Visual
Learners, some of whm can switch to using an auditory learning style, but
there are many who are not able to do this as well. The basic problem is our
cultures choice of visual notation of speech, is not as perfect for all as
you would promote. Some of us are born into this culture and are bombarded
with an alien communication system which the majority find easy to use.
Being one of the minority who find this form of communication difficult I
understand the problem s that I and others may face, being force taught
using a phonics only curriculum. The issue is not just about how to teach
children to read, but also how children are taught in all other subjects.
The Chinese do not have our phonic style of speech notation, and they do not
have dyslexia, we should be trying to adopt a similar more visual style of
notation, and teaching.
What turned me off of reading was the persistent use of the phonics based
teaching I was exposed to. Had my teachers used something such as Whole Word
I would have less problems learning to read, and a better chance of
understanding the education syllabus I was going through. My whole
educational experience was almost destroyed by the continual plugging of
phonics based teaching, especially what some from the RRF have informed me
was the 195s equivalent of synthetic phonics. 

Assumptions are dangerous, they become Bodies of Opinion, and there are real
problems when these assumptions are proved to be wrong. You make assumptions
to fill in gaps of knowledge, and in many instances these assumptions become
so well embedded in our understanding of many issues, that they become
accept as indisputable fact. This is what happened in the early day of the
dyslexia story in the UK, and some of the assumptions made in the 1960s and
1970s have been disproved by most leading researchers, but we still have to
live with them because that is what the BDA and others can raise funds for,
and to change the definitions inline with present day research would mean
too great a mind shift in explaining the underlying causes of dyslexia to
the public so that they may begin to understand the potential range of
problems anyone with a diagnosis of dyslexia may have. And in your current
analysis you are also missing the problems experienced by these individuals.
According to the British Dyslexia Association's Policy Director Carol Youngs
there are 10 Million dyslexics in the UK which is 16% of the Population.
According to the experts on the "The Myth of Dyslexia" program 60% of
dyslexics have phonological processing problems, so 60% of 10 million is 6
Million who will have problems with any phonics based teaching. And to add
to this those 6 million would also match the 10% of the population that the
Medical Research Councils Institute of Hearing Research suggest could have
some degree of Auditory Processing Disorder. I am also aware that there are
other Auditory conditions that are not APD, but are underlying causes of
dyslexic symptoms. So your assumptions begin to fall apart.

Yes after the first year most children will have demonstrated how the learn
best, and the teaching styles they respond best to. The problem is that you
and many others are trying to force fed them your own preferred teaching
style regardless of their learning style. This then alienates the child as
you are not including him in your teaching methods, I know I have been
there. Unlike many on this list I do not try to develop theories to try to
understand others who have learning problems, I have develop theories to
help me cope with my disability. So these are not hypothetical ramblings of
a university professor, but from an individual who actually has these
problems and is trying to help others while trying to understand himself,
trying to work out where things went wrong during his educational experience
and trying to make sure it does not happen again to others who have similar
problems.

Well that is me done on this topic, I could have added more. 
Just Remember Assumptions are dangerous, for so long many assumed the earth
was flat, and the intelligencia of the day advocated this, and developed
their own body of opinion to support their theory. There is no
Scientifically peer reviewed research regarding all of the existing reading
programs, and identifying which groups are best suited to which program.
This could be done if you really want to find out which programs suite which
groups of children , and how these groups of children can be identified
either in their first year in school or even pre school. Anything is pure
speculation, and subjective opinion, just like the Rose Report, which never
consulted the people who have these problems only the program providers and
program users, and as such a really ill informed report.

Best wishes

dolfrog

-----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: 02 January 2007 12:04
To: senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Subject: [senco-forum] Re Literacy

We are slowly but surely moving into a situation of general agreement that
synthetic phonics is a more effective means of teaching children to read
than the socalled 'mix of methods' which quite disgustingly, condemns more
than a million people to illiteracy every decade. That is not an opinion.
That is easily verifiable fact and the rate at which teachers are now
beginning to accept this fact is beginning to accelerate.   As Mary says -
'phonics is not a method of teaching reading - it IS the writing and reading
code'   Everyone who can read has mastered this code and it is not possible
to read unless this code is mastered. That surely, is beyond question. The
debate is now moving towards the question 'How can we ensure that all
children master this code?' and that is an enormouns step forward.

The question currently facing teachers is 'should ALL children be
compulsorily taught by synthetic phonics whether they need it or not, or
should we reserve synthetic phonics effort for those who fail to make
progress in reading in Year 1?  Is it really logical to say that we should
teach all children by one imposed method simply because it will do no harm
to those 80% or so who do not need it and who are not experiencing any
problem in learning to read anyway? Can we really justify subjecting 80% of
children to a series of skills exercises of which they have no need? I would
regard it as harmful to have to sit through an extensive series of
unnecessary sessions which taught me nothing and such a practice would
certainly be contrary to the principles of good teaching.   We must assume
of course that because it would be almost impossible to dream up a more
effective strategy for putting children off reading for life, the DfEES will
come out strongly in its favour. 

Personally, I think it is easier to make a case for selecting children who
are not making normal reading progress in Year 1 and put them through a full
synthetic phonics course under the tuition of a specially trained adult
providing that course is complete before the end of Year 2.  I would favour
having a trained synthetic phonics adult in every Infant school. This adult
could be someone whose work focused exclusively on the delivery of synthetic
phonics and not on general teaching. This person could perhaps be paid
somewhere between a TA and a teacher but whose continued employment depended
on him/her delivering national average results.  I'm pretty sure this could
be very cost effective as it would be likely to reduce the number of
children graduating to secondary schools with eductional and/or  behavioural
difficulties. 

The balance of children not making progress is likely then to be very small,
probably around 2%,. The learning difficulties being experienced by these
children will be very specific and will vary enormously and of course,
requires very full assessment and remedial attention. 

Eddie C.