[senco-forum] Re literacy

From: "Clare North" <clare at clarenorth.co.uk>

When my daughter started at the nursery attached to our local primary they 
used Jolly Phonics. Most of the children seemed to love this as they made it 
quite 'physical' and my daughter seemed to progress nicely. 2 days before 
she was due to start reception she had the first of her epileptic seizures, 
to cut a very long story short she was diagnosed with a syndrome that 
basically means she started to lose her speech and language. Behavioural 
difficulties set in because she didn't know what was happening and the very 
large doses of medication made her 'sluggish' and unresponsive. Other 
children progressed and she didn't, a statement was given and 25 hours of 
support awarded. (sorry stay with me) Special schools were considered but 
her infant school were supporting her well and she was accepted by the other 
children. Fast forward to junior school. Seizures under control ,medication 
reduced, daughter starting to regain skills she had lost. In yr 4 I was 
becoming alarmed at the complete lack of progress she was making in reading, 
The EP told me daughter would find coping strategies to help with her 
reading problems, she assured me that the school were doing everything they 
should be and to let them get on with educating my daughter. She had 
recommended precision teaching to 'help' daughter to learn the HFW for 
yr1/yr2, the LSA had spent 18 months trying to get daughter to learn 
the'blends' sl,cl,fl, etc. (this was their idea of a phonics approach) 
Anyway hope you are still with me. I finally found an SP private tutor. This 
has involved some intensive 1:1 tuition face to face in her nice quite room. 
Lots of use of a whiteboard and manipulation of letters. The tutor found 
that there were quite a few letters that daughter didn't know the sounds 
for. Sometimes if she took one letter away from a word to make another one 
daughter wouldn't know what it was. Also a lot of guessing was used e.g. 
green for grass because the picture showed green grass. We have had 18 
sessions now and my daughter is now reading her Dr. Who annual with words 
like unique and eruption and marvellous. And it is marvellous to see her 
read. I have sat in on her sessions and from what I have seen the school 
have so not been using a SP approach. She still has many difficuties and her 
verbal comprehension and other language skills are still on the 1st 
percentile, but she can read!!!

>From: "Clare North" <clare at clarenorth.co.uk>
>To: "'Maggie Downie'" 
><maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk>,<senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
>Subject: RE: [senco-forum] Re literacy
>Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 00:17:48 -0000
>
>I agree that this debate seems to be getting very muddled. A phonic
>approach would, in my experience, be useful for just about every child
>who is learning to read (and spell). Most children seem to pick it up
>relatively easily and can cope with a fairly fast pace. I think my
>concern is that we should not forget that many children start school
>with a bank of 'whole words' which they already recognise (family names
>etc) which could be incorporated into the teaching to illustrate how the
>letter sounds really do work (or not  e.g. names such as charlotte)
>However, by the beginning of Year 1 there will sometimes be a sizeable
>group of children who aren't making the expected progress. Additional
>phonic input MAY be the answer but it wont necessarily be so and we
>still need to have a repertoire of other approaches which we understand
>and are 'allowed' to use. Harrison  (1992, cited in The Primary File
>Guide to Reading) says 'how is it that some of the poorest readers in
>our schools are the ones who have had years of the teaching of phonics?'
>He goes on to stress the importance of phonemic awareness as a necessary
>pre-phonic skill and reminds us that a phonic approach sometimes
>destroys meaning if the pupil is overly dependant on 'sounding out' and
>blending everything. Phonics is a really important tool but the ability
>to access phonics is developmental and I have taught pupils who cannot
>access phonics on school entry and other older ones who recall doing
>phonics but really didn't understand what they were being asked to do
>and are very disillusioned with anything related to literacy. Phonics
>and some key whole words is probably the way to start off reading but we
>have to be very ready to change tack if it doesn't seem to be working
>and I am worried that we might end up being tied into programmes which
>end up failing quite a large group - including those with speech and
>language disorders, specific learning difficulties and APD. We perhaps
>should also remember that there are many more children with medical and
>learning difficulties in our mainstream classes now and we need to
>remain flexible in our approaches.
>
>I do support Maggie's concerns that there are inconsistencies in what is
>being said but, having said that, don't think that all the skills she
>mentions are unnecessary for reading (although they are perhaps more
>unnecessary for spelling). My favourite example is the sentence 'Though
>smelly and very old, the sewer made beautiful clothes' which is an
>example of how context influences our understanding and ability to
>accurately read the text.
>
>Clare
>
>
>---
>This email and any attachments have been scanned by AVG AntiVirus 7.5.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
>[mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of Maggie
>Downie
>Sent: 02 January 2007 22:59
>To: senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
>Subject: Re: [senco-forum] Re literacy
>
>I'm finding this 'debate' completely bizarre!
>
>   Eddie says
>
>   " 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'm sorry?  What alternative method of teaching reading are you going
>to use for this supposed 80%  (where DID that figure come from - have
>you a reference for it?) who 'don't need phonics'.  Phonics is the basis
>of our writing system, as previously pointed out to dolfrog; why don't
>children need to be taught the fundementals of their written language?
>And why should the supposed 20% of children who 'need' phonics have
>their reading skills and self esteem badly screwed up by being taught
>the 'wrong' way for a year or two, before being given what they really
>needed?
>
>     What about the ethics of teaching children to guess words from their
>shape, context, initial letters & pictures - all of which 'skills'  are
>totally unnecessary for successful reading ?
>
>
>   Maggie
>
>
>
>  Send instant messages to your online friends
>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving – check out the new Windows Live Mail 
http://ideas.live.com