[senco-forum] Re. Reading

Philip - you won't be at all comforted by my recent experience of the LA's
in-service training for the (new) new primary framework for literacy.

Initially, I admired the presenters' (literacy consultants) ability to
present the (new) new framework so enthusiastically, almost as if this is
what they had meant all along during the years that they had promoted the
(old) new framework (although the younger presenter might not have had much
time to practise literacy teaching before becoming a literacy consultant).

We met the concept of ‘simplified reading’. We were told that the 44
phonemes which make up the English sound system were now to be taught in the
first year, and that teachers ‘were accountable / would be held accountable
for providing children with the necessary opportunities’, but the
consultants quietly acknowledged that not many of the children would manage
this…
I don’t think that they had read the Rose report that they referred to, or
knew about the Clackmannanshire research project (or, therefore, the
questions that have been raised about the methodology of that study).  But
they had a summary leaflet, telling teachers the principles that they should
adopt in teaching phonics.

It was unfortunate that the emphasis on learning the 44 phonemes and linking
them to appropriate graphemes was immediately followed by the two core
principles of simplified reading – sight word recognition and comprehension.
Suddenly this started to sound like 'real books', close cousin of 'whole
language'.  So my admiration waned as I came to understand that neither
presenter recognised that they were struggling to ditch the NLS
‘searchlights’ model.

In these circumstances, I don't know whether it's comforting or
disconcerting that there were several older participants oozing scepticism
and several younger participants furiously scribbling everything down.

I understand your sense of frustration.  It's a bit of a mess.

Biff (confirmed heretic, happy to compare scars)