[senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery

From: dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk>

Empirical Researchers do not move away from their desks, they do not look at
the complexities of real life. They only statically test theories, using
second hand data.
These empirical researchers should be forced to go out into the field to
test their theories in real life situations.
The live in a world of Chinese whispers which they distort to fit their
masters needs especially when it comes to educational research. They never
go into schools to finds out how children learn. They never do any realistic
practical field tests before they reject any theory. Children are not
statistical data they are individuals who have greatly varying learning
needs.
So field researchers should be the researchers we trust not the idiot pen
pushers who prove and disprove what ever they like depending on they use the
statistical data. Empirical researchers should be the slaves of field
researchers, for it is field researchers that get the results, which the
empirical researchers play with to best suite their political or financial
masters needs.

If an empirical researcher has a theory regarding people then they should go
out and do a great deal of filed research to either prove or disprove that
theory, and not sit behind a desk playing with numbers. People are people
with feelings and needs they are not numbers.

Empirical researchers are just over rated, deskbound, number manipulators;
who have no real life experiences or research to form the basis their
opinions. And they are not able to prove anything one way or the other. 

No, you can not trust empirical researchers many of whom have secret or
hidden agendas, but you can trust field researchers who try to make sense of
the problems that exist in real life.

Best wishes

dolfrog

-----Original Message-----
From: Maggie Downie [mailto:maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk] 
Sent: 21 May 2008 16:46
To: 'Philip MacMillan'; 'Stuart Lucas'; 'Becta Senco'; SEN at tringham.net;
dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk
Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery

I think you are somewhat confused as to what 'empirical research' actually
is.  

This is one definition:

1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results
that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical
laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

In other words, a researcher sets up an experiment in order to test a theory
and uses the data gained from that experiment to judge whether it confirms
or disproves that theory.  A good piece of empirical research, far from
'ignoring the complex issues that exist in real life' will be carefully
controlled to take account of those issues.  The experiment will generate
data, which is then analysed.  A researcher may be *wanting* to prove a
theory, but if the evidence from their research results is contrary to their
theory they will abandon it.  If the results seem to confirm their theory
and can be replicated by other researchers in the field, then the theory
will generally be accepted as being valid.  The process of peer review and
replication of results is meant to ensure that any one particular theory
will not gain acceptance without solid evidence of its validity.

If you can't trust rigorous empirical research then you can't trust
anything.

Maggie

--- On Wed, 21/5/08, dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk> wrote:

> From: dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk>
> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery
> To: "'Philip MacMillan'" <P.Macmillan at exeter.ac.uk>, "'Stuart Lucas'"
<lucass at loretto.com>, maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk, "'Becta Senco'"
<senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>, SEN at tringham.net
> Date: Wednesday, 21 May, 2008, 4:27 AM
> Hi Philip
> 
> I find empirical research to lack credibility, and ignores
> the complex issue
> that exist in real life. There is a greater need to get
> these desk bound
> number crunchers to do some real field research and so
> begin to understand
> the real problems. 
> From what I have read from empirical researches is that
> they are selecting
> their source data, and then use their selected data to
> prove and justify
> their own interest groups cause.
> This may not be the case of some empirical researchers, but
> from my own
> experience they usually ignore the most important details,
> and have little
> understanding of the field research data that they are
> assessing.
> 
> So get these researchers out in the field to do their own
> field research
> instead of sitting behind desks speculatingor should we say
> guessing.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> dolfrog
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
> [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf
> Of Philip
> MacMillan
> Sent: 20 May 2008 19:43
> To: Stuart Lucas; maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk; Becta Senco;
> SEN at tringham.net
> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery
> 
> Empirical educational research is just ignored by the
> system at all levels. 
> The system spends other people's money (they have no
> option but to pay) on 
> other people's children (they have no choice as to what
> is provided to them,
> 
> unless of course you can afford private).   The government
> is always 
> bleating about tax payer value for money and how we all
> need ot be 
> accountable for what we do and yet they ignore the advice
> from their own 
> chosen experts for that of the old guard.  RR has been
> shown to be close to 
> fraudulent in the way that it gathered and manipulated the
> data and what 
> does HMG do, why it gives them more.  A bit like all the
> failed IT 
> contracts, those who fail get paid more as there is plenty
> more where that 
> came from.  Oh to be a non dom and pay nothing to live in
> the UK.  Fat 
> chance!
> 
> Philip EP
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Stuart Lucas" <lucass at loretto.com>
> To: "Philip MacMillan"
> <P.Macmillan at exeter.ac.uk>;
> <maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk>;
> 
> "Becta Senco"
> <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>;
> <SEN at tringham.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:58 AM
> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery
> 
> 
> 10 O'clock news last night -
> Reading Recovery - being pushed by .......?
> Looks like added some 20 odd billion pounds to Ed budget
> but not much
> rewards??????
> 
> Stuart
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
> [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf
> Of Philip
> MacMillan
> Sent: 19 May 2008 20:36
> To: maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk; Becta Senco; SEN at tringham.net
> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery
> 
> If you look at the INDEPENDENT evaluations of RR you will
> find that it
> by
> and large a sham.  RR obviously still has big friends in
> big government.
> 
> They should not be spending any of our money on it.
> 
> Philip EP
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Maggie Downie"
> <maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "Becta Senco"
> <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>;
> <SEN at tringham.net>
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 7:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 19/5/08, SEN at tringham.net
> <SEN at tringham.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Where the system always breaks down is for the unlucky
> > 20-25% where dealing with phonics/blending/consonant
> > clusters 'str' or 'tion', or, abstract
> > whole words - 'was/are' is difficult and where
> > context in dictation sentences has to be used to learn
> and
> > then these broken back down to individual words in
> > isolation.
> 
> Sharon, I don't quite understand what you are saying
> here.  I work with
> 'the
> bottom 25%' of readers in my school ( a perfectly
> ordinary comp. in an
> area
> of social deprivation)and I suppose I must count myself
> fortunate that
> I've
> never worked with a single child who couldn't grasp the
> principles of
> phonics and of blending.  On the other hand, they are
> uniformly confused
> and
> messed up by having had a mish mash of methods thrown at
> them at primary
> 
> school.  While I appreciate that you have had particular
> problems with
> your
> own children, I strongly suspect that Solity's figure
> of 3 -5% of
> children
> being REALLY difficult to teach is the truer one.
> 
> >
> > Not sure how this scheme got to be pushed to the fore
> by
> > government.
> >
> I think it's a case of money talking (RR are extremely
> well funded) a
> relentless publicity machine and knowing the right people
> (they have the
> ear
> of the PM).
> 
> Maggie
> 
> 
>      
> __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email
> Security System.
> For more information please visit
> http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> School postal address: Loretto School, Linkfield Road,
> Musselburgh,
> East Lothian, Scotland, UK. EH21 7RE.  T +44 (0)131 653
> 4444
> E reception at loretto.com  www.loretto.com
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> Charity No. SCO13978. Loretto School Ltd is registered in
> Scotland,
> No. SCO59500. Registered office: 16 Heriot Row, Edinburgh,
> EH3 6HR.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email
> Security System.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________

      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html