[senco-forum] Re Lieracy: Elizabeths closing comments

Eddie

Elizabeth

The number of  off-list posts I receive on this topic suggests that it is 
being followed by a large number of 'lurkers'  I never reply to these but I 
choose to reply to yours on-list.

I am a native Scot, born and raised on the borders of Clackmannanshire. My 
wife is also a teacher from the same area. I have two young relatives who 
still teach in the area and I am very familiar with the Clackmannanhire 
references. I know SP will raise literacy statistics but, like many other 
people, am unconvinced that they will raise literacy standards which I 
regard as an altogether different matter.  You did not comment of the 
difference although I accept that you are wise enough to know the difference 
which is. Most politicians are not.

You claim not have to have said that you would impose SP but I can only 
respond to what you say.   I go along with 'making SP known' but I would 
always be against the imposition of any teaching method simply because I 
happen to approve of. it.  If I support such imposition then I also have to 
support the imposition of teaching methods that I dont agree with.   That is 
what democracy is about.

Fundamentalism and fundamentalists frighten the life of out me because they 
believe that there is not the slightest possibility that they are wrong and 
that the end always justifies the means, however damaging the means. That 
is the surest possible indication of a closed mind and is the position 
taken, if not by yourself, then certainly by many SP supporters.  Although a 
supporter of SP,  I distance myself from those whose commitment to it is 
fundamental.  For my part, if anyone can demonstrate that SP will improve 
the reading standards of those who self-evidently manage perfectly well 
without it, then I would support its universal use. I have seen papers which 
claim SP will do just that but I have also seen papers claiming that there 
are people living on Mars. The words 'proof' and 'research bsed' are being 
greatly devalued in the national debate on SP.   Reading has two parts - the 
mechanical act of decoding and the intellectual act of assimilating meaning. 
SP enhances the skills associated with the mechanical part of the reading 
process - it is a training schedule - it can have no impact on the 
assmiliation the intellectual content of the text which is being read. 
Whether we like it or not, the ability to assimilate intellectual content is 
innately predetermined and only someone who believes SP has the 
unexplainable mystic qualities needed to raise intellect could believe that.

You say that SP is not a series of mechanical exercises yet that is 
precisely what it is. There is nothing wrong with that except if we seek to 
endow it with mystical properties which many appear to. I am happy to 
concede that the exercises are 'carefully constructed' but beyond that the 
rest is speculation because they do not empower children - they empower only 
a minority of children with the ability to read - they do not improve their 
IQ.   Most teachers accept that the vast majority of children acquire these 
skills without SP  The fact that you apparently seem unwilling to do so is 
something you will have to deal with yourself. I feel I have done all that I 
can to try to make my opposing position clear. The vast majority of the 
present population of the literate world learned to read without SP but that 
is something you appear to have closed your mind to. Either that or your 
view is 'So what? I would make them go through SP whether they need it or 
not'

I am heartened when politicians have difficulty imposing their will on 
teachers and some of the idiots who pass for politicians in the land of my 
birth are prime examples of the breed. You only need to take a look round 
the Scottish parliament building to get a whiff of the level of their 
incompetence and that monstrosity that looks like a first year Art students 
project, cost the tax payers forty two million pounds!  Scottish Education 
was once the envy of the world and vastly superior to the English system but 
those days are long gone. SP will gain a foothold more quickly in Scotland 
than in England and it will raise literacy statistics and that is a good 
thing for (1) the children who would otherwise leave school illiterate and 
(2)  the politicians whose ability to understand what is going on is focused 
on the short term. It will do nothing for literacy standards generally.

You mentioned 'Electronic Library' which was tested on 1000 of the poorest 
readers in 80 different schools over a full academic year. It has no SP 
component yet on average, it doubled the rate at which these one thousand 
children acquired the ability to read.  It follows inevitably that it 
greatly improved their facility with the sound/symbol relationships just 
through the sheer quantity of reading opportunity which it afforded them. I 
would be the very last to claim that it improved their intellectual capacity 
because all it improved was the fluency with which they could decode - 
nothing else.

Elizabeth, I  have only restated my position on SP in this post albeit a 
little more strongly.  I respect your views completely and now that you have 
stated that you would not impose SP, my respect increases. When anyone 
attacks the use of SP with those who clearly benefit from it, I have always 
been quick to respond but I doubt if I will ever accept that it can improve 
the intellectual capacity of any child - that would be a step too far for 
me.

Best wishes.

Eddie C.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "E Olson" <elzo15ns at dsl.pipex.com>
To: "Eddie Carron" <eddiecarron at btconnect.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [senco-forum] Re Literacy

> Eddie
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> I did not intend to impose "teaching methods I approve of " on schools.  I 
> am, however, inclined to think in principle that if a method is shown to 
> be more successful than current practice that it is our duty to make this 
> known and the duty of those who find out about the new method to adopt it. 
> (I know in practice that this is an oversimplification- The Scottish 
> education dept are not finding it easy to get SP going throughout 
> Scotland, despite the Clackmannanshire experience-  teachers are an 
> independently minded lot, and rightly so in principle).
>
> I am interested to note that you don't comment on the web pages I referred 
> you to- they are quite short.   Do they look acceptable pieces of work to 
> you, or can you pick holes in their approach?  I write this to you 
> privately and would appreciate a private reply -  I would put this on the 
> forum, so have no objection to a public reply including this email if 
> you'd  find it more appropriate.
>
> I don't think that much can be deduced from your anecdote about children 
> going to school able to read and their subsequently being overtaken by 
> classmates. All children  will develop at their own rates and according to 
> their own interests. I think it best not to deliberately send a child to 
> school reading because I fear that s/he will be bored when s/he should be 
> joining in.
>
> I just want them to be given the best tools to develop their reading 
> skills, and for that to be built on so as best to develop their 
> comprehension and interests.  I am fascinated that other countries do 
> things later and differently- but haven't made a study of it.  The example 
> that interests me most (for personal reasons) is France, where kids seem 
> to start in maternelle's at two, and where the school curriculum is 
> frighteningly prescribed.  The French children I know seem to come out 
> smiling, but I'd love to have a really close look at it all-  though I 
> don't suppose I will, now,  unless you can point me in a suitable 
> direction?
>
> Glad to have you back in the senco forum, by the way.  Do keep looking on 
> and chipping in- the younger/ newer  teachers still need the arguments to 
> be presented to them.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Elizabeth
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Eddie Carron" <eddiecarron at btconnect.com>
> To: <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 10:02 PM
> Subject: [senco-forum] Re Literacy
>
>
> Elizabeth
>
> I agree about the advantage to the 18% of becoming literate and have said 
> so, very many times. I regard it as a scandalous dereliction of our 
> profession duty that we allow children to leave school illiterate when we 
> could quite easily, with SP, have empowered them with the gift of being 
> able to read. Whereas you say you are in favour of imposing teaching 
> methods that you approve of in schools, I simply don't agree about 
> imposing ANY teaching method on any school, whether it is one I approve 
> of, or not .
>
>
>
> A few years ago, I conducted a debate on the teaching of reading at a 
> Teacher Training College attended in the main by mature students - mostly 
> housewives keen to return to work. A very high proportion of these student 
> ladies had in fact taught their own children to read before they started 
> school. Every one of them agreed that they would not do so again because 
> by the end of the first year, all of the other children could read just as 
> well as their children could. Indeed some very able children who could not 
> read when they started school quickly outstripped some of those who could 
> read before they started school. The 'initial push' it would seem, did not 
> in practice confer the kind of advantage that it is tempting to suppose it 
> would.
>
> I believe that where children are clearly capable of divining the phonic 
> relationships for themselves, it would be questionable educational 
> practice to set out to deny them that developmental experience and that is 
> precisely what the SP fundamentalists propose. It's a pity that not all 
> children can do this but that does that mean that others should be denied 
> the opportunity to exercise their own natural gifts.  In some of the 
> countries with significantly higher literacy rates than ours, formal 
> teaching is actually frowned on before the age of 7 but this does not 
> appear to disadvantage them in terms of literacy. Quite the contrary.
>
>
>
> I think the debate has probably run its course for me personally since it 
> is reaching that point where it starts to go round in circles. I will 
> follow it with interest but from a distance.
>
>
>
> My best wishes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 