[senco-forum] Re literacy

Hi Eddie

I did not say that you did not say what the assumptions were, but that it
was dangerous to make assumptions as in the mists of time assumptions can
incorrectly become believed to be fact. And history is littered with these
types of errors. I say this because I am aware that you have tying to find
the real causes of reading problems, and in this area at this stage of
research it could be dangerous to make any assumptions. 
There have been a few models of the notation of speech, which have provides
as you say a form of literacy, and as you say none are perfect. So if the
basic systems are not perfect and do not work for all, then there should be
some alternatives or variations available for those who have problems with
the system that works for the majority. 
The problem is that, many who try to teach do not see the need for
alternative methods of communication that many of us may require. 
To teach you need to engage, and if you do not communicate affectively to
the children in a class they are not engaged and the find alternative
activities to pursue. So if you are teaching reading using a phonics program
to children who have problems processing phonics, for what ever reason, you
are not engaging them, you are alienating them from the natural learning
style, and education in general, and this process of alienation can start as
early as nursery. 

It is possible to identify children in terms of the 3 main Learning Styles, 
Auditory, Visual and Kinesthetic. Some are able to switch between these
learning styles according to the task in front of them, but many are not any
only have one dominant learning style. So it should then be possible to
define the best teaching programs for each group. So each school who have to
learn how to teach these three groups. 
But just to add a further complication you can add in any from a multitude
of cognitive issues, which may mean that a child may have to develop an
alternative learning style to compensate for one of these cognitive issues
(This was the case for my Middle son) 

These are complex issues, which are not resolved by simplistic one program
answers, as some would have us believe.
Whole word was created as a solution to one group of children's issues with
reading (but marketed wrongly as a program for all, so that some one could
make money) These children still exist, and synthetic phonics is no
substitute.
For some who are on the extreme of the Auditory Learning style spectrum the
whole word teaching program would not work. And the same applies to those on
the extreme of the Visual Learning Style spectrum, phonics will not work for
them.
The worst case scenario is over use of repeating the program the use of
memory as the method of so called learning. This means that you have
bypassed the childs natural learning style, and told them that the way they
learn is wrong because it does not respond very well to your teaching style.
This is very damaging to the child and causes severe alienation.

These is NO one best program never has been and never will be. You have to
match the program with the childs learning needs. Some children can have
common needs, and they should be taught using the best program for them.

Best wishes

Graeme

-----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 22:16
To: senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Subject: [senco-forum] Re literacy

Graeme

The choice of visual representations of sounds was a natural development
over thousands years which rendered literacy possible for the vast majority
of peoples.  I have never claimed that it is perfect and for you to suggest
that I have is frankly, disingenuous.  You also accuse me of making
assumptions without saying what these assumptions are. How on earth are you
advancing the cause of APD with such self-evidently inaccurate statements?

To Barbara

Of course, most of us have to decode complex words now and then. Even
children taught synthetic phonics still encounter the same minor difficulty
in saying very occasionally occurring, chemical or medical words but this is
not a significant barrier to progress.  Also of course, reading complex
things is unlikely ever to be a significant factor in the lives of the
children on whose behalf I am campaigning.  What I want for them is
functional literacy - the ability to read a page of a tabloid newspaper -
the information on a medicine bottle - the directions on a singpost and the
ability to complete a simple form.  At the moment, they leave school being
able to do none of these things.  This is eminently achievable and it is a
skill they are being denied by the very people who are paid to provide it.
I think we will have to agree to disagree about the ethics of teaching
children wholly unnecessary things - it is certainly not good teaching
practice to subject children to a great number of lessons on a subject for
which they have no need.  I was not taught by SP but I'm quite sure I was
not disadvantaged by this fact.  One infant teacher who 'lurks' said that
what I support is precisely what is done in her school and that only a very
small number of pupils are failed by it. These then  receive formal
assessment'  For her own reasons, she chooses not to make her views known of
the forum.

This forum represents those with collectively more experience of dealing
with failing readers than any other group in society and even we are still
spinning around in ever decreasing circles.  This is precisely why the DfES
can continue to heap one disastrous, illogical and ill-considered
'initiative' after another on us and why another hundred thousand UK
citizens will continue to graduate illiterate from school every year, quite
unnecessarily. In these circumstances,  to campaign for children to be
taught something that they have no need of would be a step to far for me and
I am have long been in favour of synthetic phonics.

Eddie C.