With Kai starting "real" school after a year's warm up, learning to read has become a hot issue for us.
There's a strange disparity. His oral vocabulary is great: predator, antagonist, lethal, psychopath etc. But he can't read cat, dog and hat.
A couple of interesting things from the Grauniad.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/31/ben-goldacre-teaching-reading-shootout
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/19/primary-schools-street-literacy
Learning to read is one of my hobby-horses; another is the way propaganda works. So I really appreciated the following reader comment to one of the articles:
SvaraRaderabrucewhite
20 July 2010 3:37PM
The Miriam Gross pamphlet referred to by Rachel Williams is a ‘flat earth’ story, concocted to promote a specific agenda. It gives the impression of careful research and evaluation when it contains little more than the author's anecdotes and homilies plus random references to research. As a piece of research it has almost no value. As a piece of propaganda it has served its purpose. This is not surprising when the provenance is understood.
This pamphlet was commissioned by the conservative Mayor of London, through the right wing Centre for Policy Studies, which was set up by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph. The pamphlet considers only the issues which fit his preconceptions, such as synthetic phonics and the prevalence of patois in schools and doesn’t touch on those areas which may challenge Boris’s thinking. The pamphlet has been produced to provide Boris with the answers he wants.
This story fits a template. An interest group, with an agenda to promote, needs some research which supports its view. It commissions work, with a remit that limits the outcomes which are possible. In other words manipulates the conclusions so that they back its position. Then it obtains political endorsement, launches, often using a PR agency and ensures supporters in The Mail and Telegraph are fully briefed to follow the party line. The story wings its way round the media and then becomes newspaper, television and radio headlines. A list of unsubstantiated opinions are now accepted fact; a propaganda success based on nothing. Its a tactic already perfected by the Tax Payers' Alliance, amongst others. This doesn’t mean to say that the arguments in the pamphlet are not true, in total or in part. It’s just that it is such a high level skim of the subject, selective in its input and conclusions that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that its purpose is propaganda.
Child centred teaching is particularly useful for the Early Years. The main job of the teacher is to encourage all children to want to learn; then more formal teaching approaches such as phonics have their place. In much of Europe, this is their approach; formal teaching starts when all children are ready, at six or seven. Informal learning may mean that some children are quite advanced but the approach doesn’t leave behind the few that now ‘fail’ in the UK. For some children, the capability to read and write doesn’t come at 4 or 5. The paradoxical thing is that these children are often very capable but are scarred for life by their ‘failure’ at five or six.
Teachers have been using phonics, either as the main or only tool for teaching literacy for many years. 'Jolly Phonics' is an example and more recently the prescriptive 'Letters and Sounds'. It is an effective way of teaching older children. Most literacy teaching is now based on phonics but child centred teaching is not the reason for educational underachievement and a widening gap between the well and not so well taught. Perhaps that is down to the creation of the educational market.
All markets work the same way. The product which is marginally better than its competitor thrives and the one marginally less good goes to the wall. Kenneth Baker both predicted and desired good schools to grow and less good ones to fail and be replaced. The only problem is that poorly performing schools don’t go out of business. They continue on providing poor education to less able students.
Middle class parents move their children to schools higher up the league tables, assuming they must be better and in doing so improve their results at the expense of the schools lower down the tables. Results for the ‘good’ schools improve and for the ‘bad’ ones they plummet. This perceived rise and fall is with the same teachers in both schools
And the rest of it:
SvaraRaderaThis perceived rise and fall is with the same teachers in both schools. Then the school with the falling roll and falling standards is forced to accept all of the pupils other schools don’t want and results slip further. Teachers look for a way out and progressively the only teachers that will go to this school are either newly qualified, less capable, a churn of supply teachers, or those bloody minded few who think that it’s a job worth doing. This is your failing school. The policy of choice hasn’t improved outcomes for all; it has improved them for a few and created ghettoised schools for many. It is the reverse of a fair education policy which would allocate resources heavily in favour of the disadvantaged not heavily against them.
For those that think this isn’t true, read the research, such as Dr Phil Budgell's work in Sheffield. Interestingly, many middle class parents who have benefited from the market place know the truth and the right wing commentator for The Sunday Mail, Peter Hitchens, on Question Time a few weeks ago, said just that and that choice needs to be removed if we want to give a fair chance to all.
The difficulties of learning to read is a favourite hobby-horse; another is the way propaganda works. So I really appreciated the following comment to one of the articles:
SvaraRaderabrucewhite
20 July 2010 3:37PM
The Miriam Gross pamphlet referred to by Rachel Williams is a ‘flat earth’ story, concocted to promote a specific agenda. It gives the impression of careful research and evaluation when it contains little more than the author's anecdotes and homilies plus random references to research. As a piece of research it has almost no value. As a piece of propaganda it has served its purpose. This is not surprising when the provenance is understood.
This pamphlet was commissioned by the conservative Mayor of London, through the right wing Centre for Policy Studies, which was set up by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph. The pamphlet considers only the issues which fit his preconceptions, such as synthetic phonics and the prevalence of patois in schools and doesn’t touch on those areas which may challenge Boris’s thinking. The pamphlet has been produced to provide Boris with the answers he wants.
This story fits a template. An interest group, with an agenda to promote, needs some research which supports its view. It commissions work, with a remit that limits the outcomes which are possible. In other words manipulates the conclusions so that they back its position. Then it obtains political endorsement, launches, often using a PR agency and ensures supporters in The Mail and Telegraph are fully briefed to follow the party line. The story wings its way round the media and then becomes newspaper, television and radio headlines. A list of unsubstantiated opinions are now accepted fact; a propaganda success based on nothing. Its a tactic already perfected by the Tax Payers' Alliance, amongst others. This doesn’t mean to say that the arguments in the pamphlet are not true, in total or in part. It’s just that it is such a high level skim of the subject, selective in its input and conclusions that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that its purpose is propaganda.
Child centred teaching is particularly useful for the Early Years. The main job of the teacher is to encourage all children to want to learn; then more formal teaching approaches such as phonics have their place. In much of Europe, this is their approach; formal teaching starts when all children are ready, at six or seven. Informal learning may mean that some children are quite advanced but the approach doesn’t leave behind the few that now ‘fail’ in the UK. For some children, the capability to read and write doesn’t come at 4 or 5. The paradoxical thing is that these children are often very capable but are scarred for life by their ‘failure’ at five or six.
Teachers have been using phonics, either as the main or only tool for teaching literacy for many years. 'Jolly Phonics' is an example and more recently the prescriptive 'Letters and Sounds'. It is an effective way of teaching older children. Most literacy teaching is now based on phonics but child centred teaching is not the reason for educational underachievement and a widening gap between the well and not so well taught. Perhaps that is down to the creation of the educational market.
All markets work the same way. The product which is marginally better than its competitor thrives and the one marginally less good goes to the wall. Kenneth Baker both predicted and desired good schools to grow and less good ones to fail and be replaced. The only problem is that poorly performing schools don’t go out of business. They continue on providing poor education to less able students.
Middle class parents move their children to schools higher up the league tables, assuming they must be better and in doing so improve their results at the expense of the schools lower down the tables. Results for the ‘good’ schools improve and for the ‘bad’ ones they plummet. This perceived rise and fall is with the same teachers in both scho
The problems of learning to read is a favourite hobby-horse. Another is the workings of propaganda. So I really appreciated the following comment to one of the articles:
SvaraRaderabrucewhite
20 July 2010 3:37PM
The Miriam Gross pamphlet referred to by Rachel Williams is a ‘flat earth’ story, concocted to promote a specific agenda. It gives the impression of careful research and evaluation when it contains little more than the author's anecdotes and homilies plus random references to research. As a piece of research it has almost no value. As a piece of propaganda it has served its purpose. This is not surprising when the provenance is understood.
This pamphlet was commissioned by the conservative Mayor of London, through the right wing Centre for Policy Studies, which was set up by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph. The pamphlet considers only the issues which fit his preconceptions, such as synthetic phonics and the prevalence of patois in schools and doesn’t touch on those areas which may challenge Boris’s thinking. The pamphlet has been produced to provide Boris with the answers he wants.
This story fits a template. An interest group, with an agenda to promote, needs some research which supports its view. It commissions work, with a remit that limits the outcomes which are possible. In other words manipulates the conclusions so that they back its position. Then it obtains political endorsement, launches, often using a PR agency and ensures supporters in The Mail and Telegraph are fully briefed to follow the party line. The story wings its way round the media and then becomes newspaper, television and radio headlines. A list of unsubstantiated opinions are now accepted fact; a propaganda success based on nothing. Its a tactic already perfected by the Tax Payers' Alliance, amongst others. This doesn’t mean to say that the arguments in the pamphlet are not true, in total or in part. It’s just that it is such a high level skim of the subject, selective in its input and conclusions that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that its purpose is propaganda.
Child centred teaching is particularly useful for the Early Years. The main job of the teacher is to encourage all children to want to learn; then more formal teaching approaches such as phonics have their place. In much of Europe, this is their approach; formal teaching starts when all children are ready, at six or seven. Informal learning may mean that some children are quite advanced but the approach doesn’t leave behind the few that now ‘fail’ in the UK. For some children, the capability to read and write doesn’t come at 4 or 5. The paradoxical thing is that these children are often very capable but are scarred for life by their ‘failure’ at five or six.
Teachers have been using phonics, either as the main or only tool for teaching literacy for many years. 'Jolly Phonics' is an example and more recently the prescriptive 'Letters and Sounds'. It is an effective way of teaching older children. Most literacy teaching is now based on phonics but child centred teaching is not the reason for educational underachievement and a widening gap between the well and not so well taught. Perhaps that is down to the creation of the educational market.
All markets work the same way. The product which is marginally better than its competitor thrives and the one marginally less good goes to the wall. Kenneth Baker both predicted and desired good schools to grow and less good ones to fail and be replaced. The only problem is that poorly performing schools don’t go out of business. They continue on providing poor education to less able students.
Middle class parents move their children to schools higher up the league tables, assuming they must be better and in doing so improve their results at the expense of the schools lower down the tables. Results for the ‘good’ schools improve and for the ‘bad’ ones they plummet. This perceived rise and fall