[senco-forum] Reading and phonics

ElizabethElizabethIt is quite wrong both to personalise a debate and to accuse a contributor of saying something they did not say and I trust that the list manager will advise you accordingly. Confront the logic - not the person.You say and I quote "No-one would deny the existence of sight vocabulary." That is simply untrue. Those who believe that SP is fundamental to securing literacy for all, do indeed deny the existence of sight vocabulary and have stated quite openly that every letter or every word is decoded every time it is read, no matter how often it is read! Try going on the SP site and claiming that everybody does indeed have a sight vocabulary and then stand back! I tried it and left with scars on my back!You also say "Who on earth wants to make a literate person like yourself more literate?" Again, all those who believe that SP is fundamental to securing literacy for all, claim that even those who learned to read without SP would be better readers, spellers etc if they had been taught by SP. Some contributors to this thread make precisely this argument in rationalising their support for a policy of SP for all. I think it was you who cited the Clackmannanshire long term study as your basis for this belief yet this worthy study demonstrates nothing of the sort and for the following reason.In a real or even in an imaginary study of two large groups of children, the first taught to read by SP and the second by a 'mix of methods' the former group will achieve about 97% success and the latter group about 80%. It is simplistic to say that this shows the SP approach to be superior. Because one child in five in both groups NEEDS specific phonics tutoring in order to learn to read and in the latter group, they would not receive it, the results of the latter group must inevitably be lower. How could it be otherwise? From this perspective, the outcome of the long term Clackmannanshire study was not only predictable - it was inevitable. It is precisely this weakness which no-one seems willing to consider, let alone concede. On average, those in the SP group were more literate than the average of those those in the non-SP group and that appears to be all that matters. The results overall are better therefore the approach must be better is the credo. This denies the very individuality that Education is supposed to promote. It suggests that all children should be taught SP in infancy and ignores the fact that the vast majority have no need of formal tutoring in phonics. I can understand politicians failing to grasp this but I would hope that teachers would be less easily hypnotized.Eddie C.