2007 detailed book which says (my summaries):---
[1] Before 1945, almost everyone learned to read, by the age of 7.
[2] They learned by being taught letters, and then words where the sounds blended (e.g. CAT, DOG, ... HOSPITAL). Oddities (foreign words, adopted words, proper names, remnants of other languages - opaque, pyjama, Edinburgh, children...) were left till later
[3] After about 1945 the look-say method 'was introduced'; they have a list of 'guru' names and books, but don't know about the promotional methods
[4] Look-say in their view used just the SHAPE of words, i.e. the outline, to try to teach reading - ignoring differences in lower-case, capitals etc
[5] There's another version in which the whole word was shown, but it was deliberately withheld that the letters had some meaning, and even that words are read left-to-right
[6] As a result there was a vast increase in illiteracy. Large numbers of pupils spent years learning nothing of reading (and the parents seemed to not comment, or be bewildered). And a vast increase (or invention) of dyslexia, since of course the kids had no idea about reading.
[7] This continued at least up to the time of their book, 2007.
Their book is interesting and convincing, but (for example) omits some names of Education Secretaries, omits actual evidence of what happened in classrooms, is somewhat anecdotal about McNee's success with dyslexics, and also makes some claims which seem hardly credible, such as teaching words purely by shape.
I wonder if anyone has informed comment, preferably being familiar with the book? I'm exploring the idea that the whole process was deliberate, part of the 'Labour'/ Frankfurt School etc 'critique' attack on Europe/USA. (Alice Coleman was responsible for the attack against tower blocks - 'Utopia on Trial')
bruffin
Thu 29-Dec-11 18:48:59
Don't know anything about this book but I can say that DH was a victim of "Look and Say". in the 60s
He did not learn to read until he was 10. His mother was constantly at the school about it. The HM told her that DH would never learn to read using Look and Say. They finally got him into a remedial programme where he was taught phonics and finally taught to read.
The long term consequences to his esteem have been awful. He was put into the remedial sets all the way through secondary, not allowed to take computer studies because he was not clever enough. However went on to become a professionally qualified engineer and even getting the top marks in the country for one course he took.
He does have other dyslexic problems ie remember numbers in correct order and still can't spell and my ds has similar problems, but was taught phonics and read well but a took a bit longer to click considering his intelligence
racingheart
Date:
Thu 29-Dec-11 18:51:15
I understand that children divide into two types, roughly. Those who learn through blending and those who learn through look and say. The breakthrough look and say was discovered as a learning type was that children who naturally learn this way were finally taught in a manner that made sense to them. But they are in the minority so choosing that method over spelling out and blending did a disservice to the majority.
Anecdotally I have twins. one is a natural blender, one is a natural look and say. the look and say Dc was far slower to learn to read but now spells with 100% accuracy, even the most challenging words, as he has a photographic-style recall of them. the blender learned far more quickly and easily but his spelling is still more hit and miss as he picks a blend that works rather than the correct one.
Not convinced by the conspiracy theory but it would make interesting reading.
bruffin
Thu 29-Dec-11 19:13:26
I know MIL was told by the hm that they weren't allowed to use any other method
tallulah
Thu 29-Dec-11 19:19:48
I started school in 1968 and we were certainly taught phonics. My Dcs started school in 1990 and were taught look and say. It was (apparently) based on the theory that little children in the US recognised things like the McDs logo so should be able to be taught whole words. Yes the idea was you learned the shape of the word. The only one that really made sense was bed.
Phonics has been back in vogue for at least the last 6 (?) years, maybe more.
DeWe
Date:
Thu 29-Dec-11 19:26:15
Out of interest did the book have anything about that phonetical spelling way of learning to read that was popular during 60s/70s/80s (I think). The other school in my village used it, and they had similar catchment, but when they went to secondary were notably behind in literacy. I think it was called ITA (initial teaching alphabet?).
I remember picking up one of their books and being completely befuddled by it. They, of course, couldn't read our books either, so the library children's section was divided into two. I think it was things like "I" was written "ai" and things like that.
I'm not sure at what point they were meant to move onto standard spellings.
DilysPrice
Thu 29-Dec-11 19:29:37
I am a huge proponent of hard core synthetic phonics as the most reliable way to get the maximum possible number of children reading to a good standard within a reasonable timeframe.
However it is just bollocks that "everyone learned to read" before 1945. Illiteracy levels amongst the children of the 1930s were very high (not necessarily because of the specific literacy teaching methods).
bruffin
Thu 29-Dec-11 19:36:59
DCs started nursery in 98 and 2000 and both were taught Jolly (synthetic phonics) in nursery and primary school. DH started school in 66
mrz
Date:
Thu 29-Dec-11 19:44:40
Literacy levels have remained almost static for the past 70 years so everyone certainly didn't learn to read pre 1945.
bruffin
Thu 29-Dec-11 19:51:00
There was a primary close to us that taught ITA and most of the children ended up in the remedial class when they started secondary school (1974) DeWe
mrz
Date:
Thu 29-Dec-11 19:57:05
ITA was intended as a "simplified" alternative writing system (invented by the grandson of Pitman who invented shorthand) not as a phonic reading scheme
maverick
Thu 29-Dec-11 20:07:09
Surely it was for both reading and writing, mrz? I remember seeing books written using ITA. Sue Lloyd, who wrote Jolly Phonics, was trained in ITA.
mrz
Date:
Thu 29-Dec-11 20:18:12
Obviously if you invent a new writing system you have to be able to read it.
Pitman devised a new "alphabet" with "symbols" for the phonemes found in English
coronet
Date:
Thu 29-Dec-11 21:35:38
DeWe That's so interesting. My sister learned the phonetic system in the early 70s - and is still a really hopeless speller (university lecturer but has to double-check their/there etc still).
Madbutmeanswell
Date:
Thu 29-Dec-11 22:41:12
I am currently studying the phonics debate at uni- having now read quite a bit on the subject I think there are strong arguments for what is called 'ecclectic' teaching- i.e. using more than one method to teach a class of children to read rather than a 'one size fits all' approach. Synthetic phonics are really useful as a way of 'decoding' written words but 'look and say' will always be necessary at points for a language with as many irregularities as English. Also for speed- we all end up reading via the look and say method once we are quick readers.
Now just need to figure out how to use this theoretical knowledge to help my YR son with his phonics!!!!!!!
allchildrenreading
Date:
Thu 29-Dec-11 23:03:37
Msz. I'd love to see what evidence there is to show that illiteracy rates were as high in the 1950s as they were in the 30s-early 40s (30s -massive absence through life-threatening childhood diseases, absence through sheer poverty etc. and shortage of teachers in the early 40s) or at the height of look and say - followed by whole language -late 60s to mid 90s.
It would be good to have some stats.
Madbutmeanswell - those of us who have picked up the pieces of the children who were failed by the 'ecclectic' mixed methods are painfully aware of the damage it does to the 20%+ who don't intuit the code or who need only a little help.
You've only to look at the schools in Oxford (home of mixed methods) and those surrounding Brighton (Brighton University pgce course, ditto) to begin to see the extent of the damage.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Thu 29-Dec-11 23:13:15
OK - thanks for these messages!
@bruffin - thanks for account of DH and 1960s and remedial phonics, and long term effects. And HM saying they were forbidden to use other methods. (and your kids later, and ITA)
@racingheart - 'two types' idea. It may be that 'look say' means several different things. You seem to mean to go thru a word and try to pronounce it, and thus infer what a puzzling word must be. E.g. if you are puzzled by 'eunuch' you might work it out by pronouncing what the letters usually mean. BUT look say proper just means looking at the entire unit, and presumably memorising it - which seems so ridiculous I find it hard to believe it was used. Even more so with the outline of a word.
@tallulah - yes, it was 'holistic' or 'gestalt'. Sounds like your 1990s experience was look say in the outlines sense - bed having an upright at each end. It just seems almost insane to teach every single word, including capitals and italics presumably, like that, and crossword type words running down too.
@De We & others - yes, there's quite a detailed account of the ITA (including a table of all the symbols) invented 1959 and with a very thorough launch (McN & AC say). They have quite a high opinion of it, but of course there about 40 symbols and no other books/ papers etc use it.
@Dilys Price - I have to say I agree, I can't see any other way than phonics (or something like that). The evidence they have for 99% reading is the 1931 'Hadow Report' on primary education. (Before that, interestingly, 1870 Education Act was intended only to help 5% without schooling; however most independent schools were forced out when Board Schools were built with large capacities). Another book by E G West said 95% of 15 yr olds were literate by 1880. McN & AC's evidence is a bit contradictory; they regard 1939-1945 as a huge gap, but already in 1948 the 'National Foundation for Educational Research' [?possibly a corrupt quango?] said 30% of 15 yr olds were backward or illiterate. Various other results, and TV programmes, were quotes for the 'explosion of illiteracy'
However; I'm not much the wiser. I suspect the system - obviously crap - was imposed to damage education. Obviously public school types and informed parents wouldn't be much affected, as with some other changes. So I'd welcome informed comment. I actually met Mona McNee a couple of times, and she claims to have 'cured' a lot of hopelessly abandoned 'dyslexics'. But she's very hard of hearing and difficult to discuss with.
bruffin
Thu 29-Dec-11 23:24:42
There is research that shows we don't use shape ad in look and say but our brains are looking at each letter individually simultaneously and putting the letters together until the brain recognizes a word.
IndigoBell
Thu 29-Dec-11 23:56:54
Why do you think anyone deliberately wanted to damage education?
McNee will have taught some children to read who no one else could. Course she did. With unlimited 1:1 you can teach almost anyone to read.
And there's nothing wrong with her step-by-step program (AFAIK). It's one of many, many SP program's that work with the vast majority of kids.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 00:30:52
There's quite a telling page in McN & AC of some Arabic text - from a learner's point of view English and the English alphabet look like that.
@indigobell - there are at least 2 reasons. (1) To make money - if there's poor teaching, the pieces can be picked up by remedial teachers, private tutors, new schemes for use at home etc (2) For social engineering, as in the Frankfurt School style, or in conventional education for servants etc; they don't want intelligent or critical adults
If no one else could teach them, I'd say you're being unfair. She said I think she taught at least 300; do you think she spent 300 years or so 1:1 on them?
NB McN & AC are (in my opinion) naive about motivations; they note the increased school-leaving age, and the expansion in remedial education, as examples of money-consuming things, and as taxpayers they are outraged; but of course people receiving the money aren't likely to take that view.
IndigoBell
Fri 30-Dec-11 00:46:24
Given that we don't know who or how the kids were taught prior to using step by step the stats tell us nothing.
It doesn't take anywhere near a year of 1:1 to teach a non reader to read. It can often be done in 20 hours.
Maizie (a poster on here) has probably taught 300 kids to read in year 7 who have been failed by their previous 7 teachers.
Your making money argument makes no sense. The remedial tutors who stand to make money aren't the ones setting policy.
Social engineering argument is bizarre too. If you want to do social engineering you need to want some specific kids to pass and some specific kids to fail. A blanket deliberate policy of teaching reading badly won't do that.
EtInTerraPax
Fri 30-Dec-11 00:54:27
Nobody paid for private tutors in the 50s, other than 'Enid Blyton' type families, surely?
Rerevisionist
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 01:51:15
EtInTerra, perhaps oddly, McN & AC state that in the 19th century most working class parents paid for education. H G Wells' Autobiog has material from that time/
Indigo, if it's true that 99% of kids could read by 7, it shows modern methods are shit, doesn't it. It's that simple.
If you can teach a non reader in half a week, how come there are any non readers? Supposedly there are or were something like ten million.
The money making argument makes perfect sense. It's related to deskilling teaching. If you have loads of crap teachers, they don't need to be any good; and there's a lot of subsequent remedial work; and the unions get stronger; and the whole bureaucratic empire expands.
The social engineering argument only seems bizarre if you haven't investigated. For example grammar schools were phased out by politicians, but they were careful not to phase out public schools.
maverick
Fri 30-Dec-11 09:08:22
There's a lot of 'history' and evidence in this article by Joyce Morris -well worth a close read:
mrz
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 09:11:15
allchildrenreading I did have a link to stats but it is no longer working I'll see if I can find the data elsewhere
SoundsWrite
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 12:08:59
Maverick is right: Joyce Morris is a very good place to start. However, trends in the UK and the USA have pretty much run in parallel and the outstanding researcher on the swings back and forth between Whole Language and Phonics (itself an umbrella term) was the great Harvard Professor Jeanne S. Chall. Two of her books cover the whole period in which you are interested, Rerevisionist. They are: Learning to Read: The Great Debate and Stages of Reading Development. Chall's writing style is very accessible and both books are highly readable if you are interested in the subject. After Chall, Bonnie Macmillan's Why Schoolchildren Can't Read presents a superb survey of the research in the UK and elsewhere up to the mid-nineties and Diane McGuinness's Why Children Can't Read (not to be confused with Macmillan's book) is also an essential read, though its digression (Chapter 4) into writing systems other than alphabetic ones probably isn't as helpful as the rest of this otherwise excellent paperback.
However, I'd forget conspiracy theories: looking at the Frankfurt School (Theordor [sic] Adorno, Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse) will get you nowhere other than a degree in very obscure Marxist philosophy.
mrz
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 13:19:06
not my original source (and I'm still looking)
In conclusion it can be said that the standards of reading have remained more or less the same over a very long time – since the 1950s. There was a rise following the immediate post-war period and there was a slight drop followed by a recovery after the introduction of the National Curriculum, but in essence standards have remained constant. Very little data specifically investigates the tail of under-achievement but the indications are that this has not improved, especially when the focus of effort of schools across the country has been on Level 4s, which is well away from the level of the under-achievers. Resources and effort were targeted at those pupils who were within range of achieving a Level 4 because that is the standard by which the success of schools was judged.
^Th NCE commissioned th National Foundation for Educational Research to produce this study, Standards in Literacy and Numeracy 1948-1994, authored by Greg Brooks, Derek Foxman and Tom Gorman. Key points from its introductory summary are^:
^"1. Reading standards have changed little since 1945.
4.^ Fewer than one percent of school-leavers and adults can be described as illiterate, but almost 15 percent have limited literacy skills^.
CecilyP
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 13:19:16
[1] Before 1945, almost everyone learned to read, by the age of 7.
It seems unlikely for reasons I outlined on the other thread. As there was no manpower for remedial support, I have to say it sounds unlikely. It would also depend on how you define 'can read'. Did the authors reference any resources that were used to teach children before 1945? For instance, decodable reading books for the children to practice on.
[3] After about 1945 the look-say method 'was introduced'; they have a list of 'guru' names and books, but don't know about the promotional methods.
I think look-say really started in the mid 1950s with the introduction of Janet and John books. In 1945 our country had no money to introduce anything new into its primary schools.
[4] Look-say in their view used just the SHAPE of words, i.e. the outline, to try to teach reading - ignoring differences in lower-case, capitals etc
'Shape' of words is deceptive - it is more to do with pattern. Of course, word shape looks completely different in lower case and upper case.
[5] There's another version in which the whole word was shown, but it was deliberately withheld that the letters had some meaning, and even that words are read left-to-right
If words are read as wholes then directionality doesn't actually matter. Whole words were normally introduced to get beginners started. Letter sounds tended to be introduced later. As children were taught to both read and write - they would have learned to write words from left to write. For a fairly realistic look at how reading was taught with resources still in the public domain, it might be useful to google the Ladybird Key Word reading scheme.
[6] As a result there was a vast increase in illiteracy. Large numbers of pupils spent years learning nothing of reading (and the parents seemed to not comment, or be bewildered). And a vast increase (or invention) of dyslexia, since of course the kids had no idea about reading.
Was there a vast increase in illiteracy? If there was, then the receiving junior schools would have been very unhappy and infant schools would have had to have reverted to what they were doing before. Some pupils may have learned nothing of reading but it was more to do with the lack of money to provide remedial support for those who, for whatever reason, fell behind.
^[7] This continued at least up to the time of their book, 2007.
Their book is interesting and convincing, but (for example) omits some names of Education Secretaries, omits actual evidence of what happened in classrooms, is somewhat anecdotal about McNee's success with dyslexics, and also makes some claims which seem hardly credible, such as teaching words purely by shape.^
McNee may well have had success with dyslexics but may have been able to do this by providing one to one or small group support for children who were behind. This kind of support would not have been available prior to 1945.
mrz
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 13:27:21
CecilyP
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 13:36:19
^Out of interest did the book have anything about that phonetical spelling way of learning to read that was popular during 60s/70s/80s (I think). The other school in my village used it, and they had similar catchment, but when they went to secondary were notably behind in literacy. I think it was called ITA (initial teaching alphabet?).
I remember picking up one of their books and being completely befuddled by it. They, of course, couldn't read our books either, so the library children's section was divided into two. I think it was things like "I" was written "ai" and things like that.
I'm not sure at what point they were meant to move onto standard spellings.^
It was called the Initial Teaching Alphabet and first introduced in the mid 60's and claimed to be a panacea for all reading woes. It caught on in a big way and was used in a significant number of schools in the mid to late 70's before falling into disuse. The normal time for children to move on to standard spelling was year 2, so I am surprised that there were ITA books in secondary.
maizieD
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 13:38:47
EtInTerra, perhaps oddly, McN & AC state that in the 19th century most working class parents paid for education. H G Wells' Autobiog has material from that time/
It is absolutely true that all elementary schools were fee paying until some time in the early 1880s. Compulsory (but not free!) education from ages 5 -10 was introduced in 1880. 'Free' education was brought in under separate legislation (according to Wiki... )
paddingtonbear1
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 13:48:20
My old infant school used ITA. My mum (a primary school teacher) didn't think much of it, and started teaching me phonics before I started school. I've always been a good reader and speller, which I suspect is largely down to mum. dd took ages to get the hang of reading, but is OK now at age 8. Her spelling is appalling though.
mrz
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 13:51:39
The 1833 Factory act provided 2 hours compulsory education for all children for the first time the 1870 Elementary Education Act created School Boards which could insist on attendance (5-13) and pay the fees of the poorest children 1880 saw compulsory school attendance (up to age 10) introduced.
andaPontyinaPearTreeeeee
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 13:52:07
It was (apparently) based on the theory that little children in the US recognised things like the McDs logo so should be able to be taught whole words.
Wow
CecilyP
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 13:55:16
@Dilys Price - I have to say I agree, I can't see any other way than phonics (or something like that). The evidence they have for 99% reading is the 1931 'Hadow Report' on primary education. (Before that, interestingly, 1870 Education Act was intended only to help 5% without schooling; however most independent schools were forced out when Board Schools were built with large capacities). Another book by E G West said 95% of 15 yr olds were literate by 1880. McN & AC's evidence is a bit contradictory; they regard 1939-1945 as a huge gap, but already in 1948 the 'National Foundation for Educational Research' [?possibly a corrupt quango?] said 30% of 15 yr olds were backward or illiterate. Various other results, and TV programmes, were quotes for the 'explosion of illiteracy'
It would also very much depend on how you define literacy which can be anything from being able to sign your name to gaining at least a C for GCSE English. For instance, it would be hard to see how literacy levels of 15 year olds were measured in 1880 when most would already have been in the workplace. I have read that at a similar date that 96% of bridegrooms were literate - I will leave you to ponder that one!
CecilyP
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 14:07:20
@indigobell - there are at least 2 reasons. (1) To make money - if there's poor teaching, the pieces can be picked up by remedial teachers, private tutors, new schemes for use at home etc (2) For social engineering, as in the Frankfurt School style, or in conventional education for servants etc; they don't want intelligent or critical adults
As indigo said, the policy makers would be completely different people from those making money from remedial teaching. The state (taxpayer) provided very little remedial teaching in the 1950s. And plenty of people who can read are neither particularly intelligent or critical adults.
If no one else could teach them, I'd say you're being unfair. She said I think she taught at least 300; do you think she spent 300 years or so 1:1 on them
She was not teaching one child for 5 full school days per week. She may have done just one or 2 sessions per week.
SoundsWrite
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 14:38:09
In response to some queries about ita: as mrz wrote, ita was the brainchild of James Pitman, grandson of Isaac Pitman, the developer of the Pitman shorthand method.
What Pitman did was to take all the basic one-to-one sound/spelling correspondences and then to invent a symbol for the remaining sounds. You'll find the complete alphabet here (https://www.omniglot.com/writing/ita.htm). Potentially, this was a terrific idea because it would have made English as easy to learn (reading and spelling) as, say Spanish or Italian because every sound in the language would have its own unique symbol or spelling. The obvious problem with this idea was that no-one was ever going to re-write all the books in English in Pitman's ita. The second problem was that once children had learned to read using the method (This was relatively easy if a child had a good teacher!), they needed to make the transition to traditional orthography at some point in the future. If this transition wasn't handled well, as was the case for most children, the results were that many of them taught using this method never learned to spell well again. The third and final problem with ita was that it also had to be fixed to one accent of the language. So, what worked for RP speakers, didn't work for Mancunians.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 18:43:57
@CecilyP - You seem unable to understand and reply to specific issues! That's very tiresome. Of course specifying or measuring literacy is difficult. However there are many pointers, such as exam results, the papers themselves if they are available, comments made on difficulties in form-filling, what books and papers people actually bought, the number of remedial institutions, examination of things written by people, examples of incomprehension, and so on. The claim being made by McN & AC is that there was a dramatic fall in literacy, and they provide various examples of evidence, though they have no really sound overview (in my opinion). You don't seem able to understand that education in itself is social engineering, and there must be possibilities for such things as deliberate dumbing-down and deliberate multiplication of makework jobs. The fact that there are dim adults who must count as being able to read is true, but not the point.
You also seem hopelessly self-contradictory in your attitude to McNee and her dyslexic pupils or patients. If they have been in classes for ten years without learning to read, how can you seriously claim that a few sessions for a short time will turn them into fluent readers?
mrz
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 18:55:26
You don't seem to understand Rerevisionist that most of what you have posted is incorrect.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 18:59:42
@MrZ - the problem is that the National Foundation for Educational Research may itself be part of the problem. It's necessary to comb through carefully to examine their methodology. Incidentally the title you give Standards in Literacy and Numeracy 1948-1994, authored by Greg Brooks, Derek Foxman and Tom Gorman doesn't appear anywhere in McN & AC, which is very odd. Are you sure it's right?
@MaisieD - you haven't grasped that the 1880 Act was aimed only at a tiny proportion of the population, mostly rural, if J E West has got it right.
@SoundsWrite - Yes, Joyce Morris is highly approved of by McN & AC, but she was ignored and brushed off. If she'd been heeded, the disaster would not have happened, according to McN & AC.
______________
OK there are a few issues.
[1] Is it true that most kids could read by 7 before 1939? Using 'read' in a fairly ordinary sense & excluding, presumably, foreign word, complicated words, elaborate phrases etc.
[2] Is it true there was a low level of literacy starting from 1945 and getting progressively worse?
[3] Is it true there was a fashionable push to impose a system which couldn't possibly work (look-say in the outlines of word sense, plus prohibition of teaching the alphabet and left-to-right sense, plus encouraging guesswork)?
[4] Obviously one has to except parents in homes where reading was normal, and privately paid for education.
There are other things but if it's possible I'd like a serious exchange without endless derailments!
littlebrownmouse
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 19:02:35
My parents went to school in the 1950s and can both read well, could from a young age and knew very few children who couldn't read. Their peers who struggled with anything were not educated in main steam schools but were sent to 'institutions' for want of a better word. If the stats look at children from main steam schools rather than from school aged children as a whole, they will show better reading levels, the ones who couldn't do it weren't there. I have three children in my current year four class who wouldn't have been there in the 1950s, they'd have been shut away somewhere.
My mum and dad hated school, everybody they knew hated school, they were regularly beaten for not learning spellings, reading words incorrectly etc. in short, they were schooled through fear. My 3 lovely children who 'cannot' read (what does that mean? Decode? Understand?) are immensely happy at school, they are also receiving a fairly broad curriculum that includes EPR, computer skills, how to use a camera, a decent, basic science knowledge. Crucially though, they are learning to understand the world in which they live, to think for themselves and make choices. None of which would have been part of a 1950s education. I think what I'm trying to get at is that there's so much more to education today than in the 1950s and so to simply compare the way phonics is taught/not taught and come to then compare the standards attained is a bit like comparing cheese with a plastic duck.
DilysPrice
Fri 30-Dec-11 19:13:59
The thing about look-say is that it will apparently work for lots of children. Some children will pretty much teach themselves to read, and many will learn (eventually) if they're in a supportive classroom environment with intelligent flexible well motivated teachers no matter what the nominal method. Some will struggle desperately to read no matter what. Only a minority will only be able to learn if taught using optimal methods.
Now that doesn't mean that it's not important to get it right - over the period in question that "minority" represents millions of people whose life chances are at stake.
But it does mean that you don't have to postulate "conspiracy" - it was never obvious that look and say wasn't working, because of course the vast majority of children did learn to read.
Caveat: whilst I am very interested in the subject I am not an expert or a professional, so the above is only my opinion.
mrz
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 19:16:54
Most people did NOT learn to read and write before 1945 (the figures were in fact much the same as they are now which in itself is truly shocking)
The Look & Say method had been around since the 1920s and widely used (so how did everyone learn to read pre 1945 if they were being taught Look & Say?)
Recognising words by shape is part of the whole word method
The book is interesting and convincing and highly emotive and inaccurate
Phonics is IMHO beneficial to all children but your conclusions are still incorrect.
DilysPrice
Fri 30-Dec-11 19:21:07
Also I know unquestionably intelligent adults without any possible vested interest who will argue strongly that either
A) I as a reading adult do not read words phonetically therefore phonetic teaching is not the right way to teach fluent reading
or, more commonly
B) phonetic teaching is a joyless mechanical process which removes children's ability to appreciate and understand real books
Never attribute to malice (/conspiracy)..,,,,,
maverick
Fri 30-Dec-11 19:28:19
''The book is interesting and convincing and highly emotive and inaccurate''
Yes, that would be my opinion of the book too -furthermore, McNee is keen on corporal punishment and Prof. Coleman believes in graphology
maizieD
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 19:59:01
@MaisieD - you haven't grasped that the 1880 Act was aimed only at a tiny proportion of the population, mostly rural, if J E West has got it right.
I don't know who J E West is but s/he seems to have got it wrong.
Before the 1870 Act education was provided in all areas by a number of institutions, mostly religious based but could be just any old person. Parents paid fees for children to attend. The 1870 Act allowed for the setting up of school boards to provide elementary education in areas where there was no other provision. (This might be where the confusion has set in). The 1880 Act made schooling compulsory between ages 5 & 10 but fees still paid by parents. An Act in 1881 allowed for a govt. grant of 10s (50p) a year towards each individual child's schooling (about 3d {1.2p}per week, which was about the standard rate previously charged per child, for 40 weeks)
telsa
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 20:04:33
Irrespective of the literacy arguments, please don't peddle that tripe about 'Labour'/ Frankfurt School etc 'critique' attack on Europe/USA'....it is a total load of rubbish promulgated by US anti-Semite reactionaries who know absolutely nothing about the Frankfurt School and just put out conspiracy theories to wind people up --- why do you chuck it in - makes me not want to read anything you write, as it is so ill-informed and spurious.
mrz
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 20:06:24
1870 Education Act
The 1870 Education Act stands as the very first piece of legislation to deal specifically with the provision of education in Britain. Most importantly, it demonstrated a commitment to provision on a national scale.
The Act allowed voluntary schools to carry on unchanged, but established a system of 'school boards' to build and manage schools in areas where they were needed. The boards were locally elected bodies which drew their funding from the local rates. Unlike the voluntary schools, religious teaching in the board schools was to be 'non-denominational'. A separate Act extended similar provisions to Scotland in 1872.
More Education Acts
The issue of making education compulsory for children had not been settled by the Act. The 1876 Royal Commission on the Factory Acts recommended that education be made compulsory in order to stop child labour. In 1880 a further Education Act finally made school attendance compulsory between the ages of five and ten,
rabbitstew
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 21:16:01
"Before 1945, almost everyone learned to read, by the age of 7..." and following changes after that date to teaching methods, "there was a vast increase in illiteracy".
What a lot of b*ll*cks.
There must be considerable confusion in these statements between not being a fluent reader and being illiterate and considerable hyperbole in the use of the word "vast"... I therefore feel inclined to discount the entire content of the book which inspired such summaries as a load of biased rubbish. If you want to be taken seriously, you shouldn't blatantly exaggerate.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 21:40:48
Thanks, maverick. Joyce Morris is listed as a 'goody' by McN & AC and like them states that teachers would secretly tell them they believed in phonics teaching, but didn't dare risk their jobs etc. However that piece is nearly 20 years old. Judging by the bibliography of MMcN & AC, Joyce Morris died or retired a few years later - her list of publications come to a sudden stop in 1994.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 21:43:39
Message deleted by Mumsnet.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 21:53:15
maverick, you say 'that would be my opinion of the book'. You don't seem to have read it. You say McNee is keen on corporal punishment and Prof. Coleman believes in graphology. McNee likes orderly classes; Coleman thinks there's a correlation between handwriting and character, as in fact there obviously is. Can you please do me a favour and not waste any time here? Thanks.
mrz, there's a tricky issue, which is that it seems quite difficult to find out what in fact happened in schools. For example, many schools were forced to adopt 'look say', but it seems likely that many pretended to, but didn't.
MaizieD - W E Forster 1870 Education Act – compulsory edn from 1880 INTENDED TO HELP ONLY 5% WITHOUT SCHOOLING, MAINLY IN RURAL AREAS - my note from McN & AC. It seems to have got out of control, and large schools were built, wrecking the small paid ones. But this is NOT VERY RELEVANT to the issue here
DilysPrice - it is quite simply not possible to learn by the 'whole word method'. There are too many words, too many shapes, etc. Try it with Arabic or Russian or Georgian if you don't believe me. The whole thing is manifest nonsense.
littlebrownmouse - I'm interested in the big picture. Maybe your parents hated London. or loved the cinema, or hated coffee, or loved magazines. So what?
Rerevisionist
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 22:24:53
rabbitstew, they evidence they produce is a bit of a mixed bag; and there must be evidence somewhere (e.g. maybe job application letters, or exam scripts) which would provide evidence. There are estimates of millions of illiterate or more or less illiterate adults, so much so that even educators have noticed. But you're not entitled just to say b*llo*cks unless you were alive both before 1939 and up to the present day, and have evidence spanning the whole of Britain.
rabbitstew
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 22:59:13
OK, then, message from my father and grandmother: "What a load of b*ll*cks."
I ignore the "evidence spanning the whole of Britain" bit because I am quite convinced that there is just as much "evidence" out there that could go towards disproving the hypothesis as there is evidence proving it, given that the evidence of those setting it out is such a "mixed bag." I'm also not sure why it is helpful to have been born before 1939 when it comes to assessing the evidence... Unless you were the person responsible for carrying out and collating the research before 1939 and also the latest research, which would make you an exceptionally old researcher, now, and a child genius earlier.
It is, of course, an awful lot harder these days to find a job (or to claim benefits) that doesn't require some level of literacy. It is also far harder to avoid having your personal data farmed for research into levels of health, wealth and education than it was in the past. It was extremely easy for an illiterate person to find a job in the days when this country was highly industrialised, so illiteracy could far more easily have gone by unnoticed and unrecorded pre-1939 than it does now.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 23:04:25
rabbitstew, the question is whether reading was possible for almost everyone by the age of 7. That's the essence. Everything you've said is carping and adds nothing. Can't you understand that? Why should your dad and grandma be regarded as vital sources of evidence?
maizieD
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 23:24:49
MaizieD - W E Forster 1870 Education Act – compulsory edn from 1880 INTENDED TO HELP ONLY 5% WITHOUT SCHOOLING, MAINLY IN RURAL AREAS - my note from McN & AC. It seems to have got out of control, and large schools were built, wrecking the small paid ones. But this is NOT VERY RELEVANT to the issue here
I just hate to see misinformation being perpetrated
However much you quote from Mona's book on this point it is just wrong.
I am actually quite puzzled as to what you do want from this thread. And amused by your hard line with the perceived deviants...
KTk9
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 23:29:23
.............DilysPrice - it is quite simply not possible to learn by the 'whole word method'. There are too many words, too many shapes, etc.......
Wrong! I started school in 1967 and was taught the whole word method. I didn't know any phonic sounds until I was about 10 or 11 and even then, only some of them.
I struggled with reading until age 7 and then just flew. I read incredibly fast and recently, an early years teacher did a test on us Mums to see how many words we recognised, purely by shape - she blacked out the letters and so we had the whole word in a silhouette block. I could read the whole sentence, without seeing any of the letters. I didn't even think about it!
rabbitstew
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 23:41:35
Rerevisionist - you were the one who told me I had to have been born before 1939 to be allowed an alternative point of view.... I merely illustrated why that was a silly argument on your part. As for the question as to whether reading "was" possible for almost everyone at the age of 7, I still think the "vital sources of evidence" you seek are seriously missing from the book you keep quoting. You practically admit so yourself by describing the evidence a "bit of a mixed bag" - it certainly sounds like a case of scraping the barrel of to me. Their case is clearly NOT proven or they would have produced more solid evidence for it...
rabbitstew
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 23:46:24
(ps when I referred to this country's highly industrialised past in an earlier post, I was referring to the days of heavy industry, mining, farming and manufacturing, pre- the computer and service industry age, when jobs requiring no ability to read or write were still easily come by, of which there were still plenty pre-1945).
12345667
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 23:50:15
Has the OP escaped from a conspiracy theorist site?
OP, have you tried posting at David Icke's site. They might be more receptive to your theories.
reallytired
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 23:50:24
"Literacy levels have remained almost static for the past 70 years so everyone certainly didn't learn to read pre 1945."
Pre 1945 many children were in ridiculously large classes. It is not surprising that some children failed to learn to read. The health of children is better and fewer children live in extreme poverty than pre 1945. Before the welfare state some children would have been living in squalid slums with no heating and a terrible diet.
It must be substantially easier to teach a class of 30 with a TA and a highly trained teacher. Schools also have computers and better resources than pre 1945. The fact that reading levels have remained static in spite of a dramatic improvement in resources surely shows that phonics is the most effective way to teach children.
rabbitstew
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 23:55:11
Of course, moving on from being unable to prove that levels of illiteracy have increased vastly since 1945, we could go on to argue that these unproven increases are the result of a Marxist conspiracy.
rabbitstew
Date:
Fri 30-Dec-11 23:58:00
Before the Welfare State, many children would have gone completely under the radar when it came to keeping track of their health, wealth and education...
Rerevisionist
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 00:10:16
Message deleted by Mumsnet.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 00:24:17
reallytired, there are several issues: it's obvious the look-say idea cannot possibly work, and must have been supplemented by alphabet related teaching. Related to this is the question whether kids before say 1939 could read in some sense, almost all by the age of 7; and if, after 1945, there was a huge decline. Then there's the issue of why an obviously phoney system was foisted on people - or at least some of them. You don't seem have grasped any of that.
rabbitstew
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 07:54:17
Rerevisionist. It's a question of evidence. Are you stupid? You just don't appear to have any. I don't actually need any, because I'm not trying to prove a very stupid theory. I'm not even trying to disprove it, just to point out you can't hang a theory on no evidence, one way OR the other.
rabbitstew
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 08:02:24
Although, trying to clarify the theory, is your viewpoint that there was a Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the West by convincing its educationalists to attempt to teach children to read by using a look-and-say method of reading and disallow any other method to be used? And are you attempting to show that this worked by proving that hardly anyone in this country can now read and write?
nooka
Sat 31-Dec-11 08:06:12
I know one shouldn't rise to conspiracy theorists because they are live in a parallel dimension and it is quite pointless trying to have anything approximating a normal conversation with them, but I have reported Rerevisionist because I think that the comments made earlier are really quite nastily anti-semetic [sic] and whilst it's always handy to know who not to talk to I'm not sure that they should stand. without challenge.
IndigoBell
Sat 31-Dec-11 08:06:24
But we've all told you - 99% of kids could not read before 1939.
If you couldn't read though you didn't graduate from school, so the stats for kids graduating could be 99% literate.
So you'd need to know not only how many kids left school able to read - and how many kids there were in the UK in total.
An awful lot of jobs required no literacy skills at all.
My relative left school at 12 unable to read, and went to work om a farm.
IndigoBell
Sat 31-Dec-11 08:08:31
You're right Nooka.
mrz
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 08:13:58
Rerevisionist you seem to be saying that the information in this book is completely true and accurate but refusing to accept the numerous other sources that contradict it are incorrect.
There is plenty of evidence if you are willing to open your mind and accept that the gospel according to MM&AC is flawed.
Have you studied education? Have you studied sociology? The book is seriously inaccurate and anyone who has done any serious research would laugh at it.
ithaka
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 08:20:34
I was taught by ITA at a small prep (private) school. I moved to the local state primary aged 8 and boy did I have a lot of catching up to do! I now have an English degree (from an ancient) so it didn't hold me back long term, but I do come from a book reading house, which I think helps any child. Motivated children will probably teach themselves to read whatever the method.
My mum was a primary school teacher for over 30 years so saw many trends come and go. In her view, the best teachers payed lip service to the current trend to please the inspectorate, but taught children how they needed to learn, which was often a mix of approaches. The ITA thing didn't worry her as apparantly she had confidence in my innate intelligence (plus, I think parents were far more 'hands off' in the 60s & 70s).
rabbitstew
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 09:24:45
My view is that silly fads in the teaching of reading are the result of silly people over-inflating their evidence and twisting facts to fit their pre-conceived theories and then pushing everyone else along in their blast of hot air. That's why I don't like books which exaggerate and overplay their hand, as per McNee and Coleman - they are being just as bad as the gurus of the past whom they criticize.
CecilyP
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 09:43:10
@CecilyP - You seem unable to understand and reply to specoific issues! That's very tiresome.
Sorry, I thought I had taken specific issues and replied to them as far as I was able. Sorry that you should find it tiresome when I have tried my best.
Of course specifying or measuring literacy is difficult. However there are many pointers, such as exam results, the papers themselves if they are available,
What exams are you thinking about? Until fairly recently, the majority of pupils did not take public exams. Public exams are taken at 16, so only the most able took them when the schools leaving age was 14 or 15. The only public exam that most will have taken is the 11+ but I doubt if children's scripts have ever been released for public perusal.
comments made on difficulties in form-filling, what books and papers people actually bought, the number of remedial institutions, examination of things written by people, examples of incomprehension, and so on. The claim being made by McN & AC is that there was a dramatic fall in literacy, and they provide various examples of evidence, though they have no really sound overview (in my opinion).
Problems with form filling may be as much to do with the forms themselves as the people completing them. Have you tried the passport form recently? We can all give examples of people with low literacy but unless we make a comprehensive study, we can't really make any convincing claims.
You don't seem able to understand that education in itself is social engineering, and there must be possibilities for such things as deliberate dumbing-down and deliberate multiplication of makework jobs. The fact that there are dim adults who must count as being able to read is true, but not the point.
Do I need to understand that education is social engineering? It seems totally unlikely that the government in the immediate post-war period needed to produce makework jobs. Also, it is only since the 1980s that the government has taken to micro-managing what goes on in schools with the introduction of the national curriculum etc.
You also seem hopelessly self-contradictory in your attitude to McNee and her dyslexic pupils or patients. If they have been in classes for ten years without learning to read, how can you seriously claim that a few sessions for a short tiem will turn them into fluent readers?
I don't think I am being contradictory, just doing the maths. I haven't read the book that you are referring to, so do not know the age of the children being taught, but being in classes for '10 years' would not have taught children who had fallen behind to read, if those classes involved no focused reading tuition. On the other hand, a weekly or twice weekly one to one, perhaps for a year, would enable considerable progress.
CecilyP
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 10:19:30
Rerevisionist, are you newly arrived from outer space? No, seriously, what is your background? You seem to have absolutely no prior knowledge, yet you seem to be able to read and write - how did you learn? You have read a book that you are a little sceptical about and yet when other posters also convey scepticism and, in some cases provide concrete evidence, you rubbish their posts.
So in answer to your question [2] The question is - could 99% of people read by the age of 7 by 1939 ish?, why don't you go away and do some research and come back and tell us. Why post on a site for mums? Why not post your question on a site for historians or educationalists or even eductional historians. When you have gathered all your evidence, with relevant sources, dates and statistics, and hopefully some resources used by schools prior to 1939, you are welcome to come back and present them to us.
maizieD
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 10:44:13
maizieD - [1] Have you read and studied Forster's 1870 Education Act, and checked if all its provisions were in fact carried out? I would imagine not.
Have you?
Anyway, my original post had nothing to do with whether or not provisions of any Education Act were implemented. It was merely to point out that prior to the 1880s (1891 to be exact) all education was paid for by children's parents.
[2] The question is - could 99% of people read by the age of 7 by 1939 ish?
The answer is that it is highly unlikely.
Definitions of what constitutes 'reading' are numerous and vague, and the collection of comprehensive and definitive statistics was so unlikely at that period, that it is impossible to make a definitive judgement.
mrz
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 11:01:47
I've read the Foster Education Act and of course all it's provision wasn't carried out school attendance ran at about 82% rather than universal attendance (some things never change it seems)
Try Hansard Rerevisionist you can read lots background and supporting information
CecilyP
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 11:35:24
Thanks maizieD, you have managed to say what I wanted to say, but much more succinctly.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 12:33:28
I wish people who don't have information wouldn't waste their and my time by posting here. However, I don't want to specifically reply or there will be more tantrums.
The working hypothesis is based round
[1] Look say was obviously unworkable; how was it foisted on people?
[2] Was the foisting deliberate and part of social engineering?
[3] There are tricky factual issues: what were standards of reading/writing before and after? I'm not so concerned with comprehension or critical abilities, as these tend to come later or be dependent on external things
[4] Were the fashionable, 'guru' driven, novel systems in fact used? Common sense suggests actual classroom (and homework) practices might well not be those officially laid down
McNee & Coleman's book is useful as a reference point, although - and it's of course not alone in this - it's a bit flawed by e.g. presenting theories about the brain which may or may not be true, and e.g. by being a bit personal when discussing brush-offs by education politicians, and by people preparing official reports. However they are naive about the way beliefs are forced top down, which suits me as they have no axe to grind - in fact, they don't even know there's an axe.
Evey schoolchild has a mother, so mumsnet might provide useful feedback, though they mostly (I'd assume) tend to be too young to have much feel for state and other manipulation. But, still, worth a try.
mrz
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 12:51:56
1. Look & Say wasn't unworkable - flawed but not unworkable many children did learn to read but it failed others
2. The UK followed the USA (as they often do) only to realise the mistake too late
3. sorry but what are you actually asking?
4. The gurus like Margaret Meek, Frank Smith were part of academia rarely seen in the classroom for most of the period you are talking about there was no official practice laid down ... a statutory curriculum began in 1988 with a literacy strategy (not compulsory introduced in 1998) even so schools were still free to teach reading how they considered best)
mrz
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 12:53:46
McNee and Coleman's book is emotive misinformation that you are accepting as correct ...it isn't.
rabbitstew
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 13:05:32
So, the manipulation had to be very subtle, then, mrz. Teachers had to be so convinced by crackpot gurus that they followed their advice to the letter, even though they didn't have to, because the State at that time did not prescribe one method of learning to read - unlike now, when the State does appear to have decreed synthetic phonics to be the best method. We must believe that the synthetic phonics being pushed now is not evil manipulation by the State but an enlightened good idea, but the look and say method that was particularly fashionable post-1945 WAS the result of cynical state manipulation.
I reckon there are an awful lot of clever, sneaky people out there, trying to trick us into rejecting synthetic phonics by pushing it overtly, making it look like State interference. The same people in the past got everyone to buy into look and say by making it look like an enlightened good idea that wasn't being thrust upon them by the State. Or maybe we should be rejecting synthetic phonics, because it is being thrust down our throats so much these days, it must be a conspiracy. Mmmm. I think I'll have to go away and think about that one.
rabbitstew
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 13:21:40
Ah, yes. I know. It's not really the State that's manipulating us. It's a shadowy group of super-powerful puppet masters who all meet together in secret and decide world events and dictate how individual states and the people within them should behave - right down to the smallest details. They have all manner of sneaky means by which they brainwash us and cause us not to believe that there is actually just this one super-group of evil masterminds in the world pulling all the strings. They manage things to make it look like human beings are fallible and weak, even those who seek power, but actually they personally are not.
rabbitstew
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 13:23:44
Actually, they aren't that sneaky. They call themselves the world market and pretend they aren't even human. They hide behind their edifices.
maizieD
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 13:44:49
The only tantrums appear to be yours!
In answer to your hypotheses:
1) The Whole Word theory of teaching reading has been around for at least 100 years. In fact, I've been doing some googling and it seems to have been known and implemented in the late 18th century. Advocates were Psetalozzi (Swiss) and Mann (US). It was given a huge boost by Frank Smith in the 1970s. He was (still is, for all I know) a smooth and highly charismatic operator. As far as I know he had never actually taught a child to read before promulgating his theories.
Whole Word was embraced enthusiastically by much of the teaching profession. 'Imposition' is too strong a word to use, though it was certainly 'imposed' locally in many instances (i.e by HTs or School Boards)
I suspect that when McNee & Coleman are talking about Whole word being 'foisted' they may be referrring to the UK National Literacy Strategy, in place from 1998 to 2007. This was non-statutory (as is the currrent guidance) but very heavily pushed by govt & LAs and it needed a very strong HT to resist the pressure to conform.
Look & Say is not 'clearly unworkable' in that a significant number of children appeared to learn to read with it- some learned to read well, some learned to read after a fashion.
2) Of course it is not deliberate social engineering. Keeping part of your populace ignorant can be a pretty dangerous thing, as the Bourbons discovered in France and the Romanovs in Russia.
3) Tricky indeed and impossible to be 'factual' about as reliable statistics don't exist (as I said earlier)
4) Yes, they were...
maizieD
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 13:46:55
LOL @ rabbitstew...
cornsilxk
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 13:49:06
I blame sesame street. I never trusted that big bird.
learnandsay
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 13:54:37
I can't quote from authors and studies the way most of you have done here. But I really enjoyed reading up on the L&S versus phonics schism a while ago. Anecdotally I can't help feeling that L&S produces faster results. You can teach a child to "read" a simple poem in a few minutes. Whereas it would take much longer to learn how to construct all of the sound combinations therein. I saw someone damning mixed approaches earlier. In formal teaching that might be correct. But speaking practically, don't we all employ a mixture of L&S and phonics in our lives? Some words, as someone else mentioned, have to be memorised.
That's not the same thing as having a L&S vocabulary and limited formulaic reading books. That part of L&S was badly wrong.
rabbitstew
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 14:03:28
I agree wholeheartedly, cornsilxk. And I don't even think big bird was actually a bird... I think he might have been human. That's just evil.
cornsilxk
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 14:23:59
he was human ...that would be a conspiracy surely.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 15:40:51
I wish I could delete the spammers. However, I can't.
Let me just comment on 'mrz'. He/she says look say was 'flawed but not unworkable.' This is not the case. It is complete and utter rubbish. It couldn't possibly work. Let me suggest a look at this
https://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/language-nuke-lies-global-outreach.html
which is a multi-language outreach page including scripts in a few dozen languages. It makes it clear assuming you're not familiar with a few dozen languages how the components of words are essential - the subdivision into words is itself somewhat artificial. Word shape is a completely useless basis - words have to have shapes, but these vary with typography and layout and are USELESS is teaching spelling. I'm using McN & AC as a handy starting point as it is meaty with info. You are dismissing it without having read it.
'Foist' was my word; but several posters here can't even understand how ideas and attitudes can be forced into circulation - they don't seem to know about advertising, pressure-groups, legal forces, editors, military force as imposing beliefs.
I'm trying to find people who see the importance of the issue and take it at least fairly seriously. Please don't spam.
cornsilxk
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 15:43:06
'I wish I could delete the spammers. However, I can't.
delusions of grandeur right there
mrz
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 15:50:14
Rerevisionist you saying it couldn't possibly work does not make it true sorry but how many children have you taught to read? How much real research have you done other than reading MM & AC book? How much action research have you carried out into reading?
Look and Say worked for many children and failed just as many that is a fact and no matter how much you stamp your feet and sulk you can't change facts.
mrz
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 15:51:43
People can't see the importance because what you are writing isn't correct.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 16:35:13
'mrz' do me a favour and off. Thanks. I'm sure you recognise the word.
mrz
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 16:40:33
No you need to help with that I don't think it's in my vocabulary but I think I'll stick around anyway.
cornsilxkski
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 16:51:46
So the OP wants the posters who actually have experience of teaching reading to leave the thread. Funny that.
Rerevisionist
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 18:11:44
Sorry, my message was garbled by the system here. I was inviting mrz to * * * * off. If that gets through. It's a subtle joke based on his belief system.
corn, I'm interested in the totality of reading, not someone who posts without understanding the issues.
mrz
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 18:20:56
Then perhaps you can answer my question about how many children you have taught to read by any method? or what experience you have of reading instruction? or how much actual research you have undertaken into reading ? (reading MM & ACs book doesn't count) Any serious action research into reading?
Have you explored the British Education Index?
Feenie
Date:
Sat 31-Dec-11 18:27:22
Mrz is very much a lady, rerevisionist.
rerevionist - you really are so rude! I won't take it personally though. /p>
Carry on making a monumental dickhead out of yourself by all means, but please don't insult other posters whilst doing it.
That was aimed at the OP, obv.
Feenie, you may not think that ruining the education of millions of children is important. Maybe you're right; or maybe you're just biased. But if you haven't anything useful to say, please don't add to the spam. Thanks.
Rerevisionist have you got any evidence that contradicts what you have been told by posters on this thread other than MM & AC who offer no evidence
(because there isn't any as it is untrue)
Spam, my foot. You opened a debate, and several posters who are actually directly involved with the successful teaching of reading have contributed to it.
Spam doesn't mean posting opinions which you disagree with. Look it up.
It stands to reason look and say is going to work for a lot of people. Most people, if they look at the same word repeated enough times and hear how it is pronounced, are going to work out how to read it without any prompting after a while - their own brain will work out the connections between the sounds and the symbols and the combinations of symbols. Some people need those connections made obvious to them - eg need to be taught phonics rather than being left to work the hidden rules out for themselves through a combination of memorising particular words, practice and experience, maybe because some people have difficulties integrating information from several senses at once (ie taking information from both vision and hearing and combining it in order to make sense of it). I doubt there are many fluent readers out there who, regardless of how they were taught, don't recognise that particular letter combinations almost always make particular sounds, regardless of the words they are found in. If most people recognise these connections even if they weren't actively taught them, then they didn't all need to be taught them and not all of them would have learnt to read more quickly if they were actively taught to them. That doesn't mean the process of decoding words phonically isn't going on in peoples' brains behind the scenes without them being aware of it (nor does it mean that people haven't also memorised a lot of words that in no way sound the way they are spelt). Just as when we catch a ball, we aren't aware of the process of calculating where our hands should be in order to catch it....
Feenie educates children which is far more important than your ill informed tantrums Rerevisionist
Rerevisionist, I have just read through this thread and do you realise just how rude you come across? Thought I'd mention it because your tone amongst other things is hindering your ability to debate effectively.
Those people are not spammers but legitimate posters on a public forum.
I instensly dislike conspiracy theories and they tend to ignore small details like a need for rigorous, valid evidence. Very unscientific.
mrz and feenie - there's a problem here, rather like the problem of patients' testimonials, namely how reliable are they? Large numbers of 'adults' in Britain can barely read, apart from the 'Sun', and otherwise show little for their long period of education. For all I know, mrz's output may be entirely like that. But, if so, is she likely to admit it? This is why I'm doing my best to collect informed comments. McN and AC's book is stuffed with authors, titles, information on government reports, summaries of tests (or, more often, tests which have been not carried out deliberately), and comments on laws, mostly in Britain. But there are holes in the information structure, and, life being short, some of their material is e.g. TV programme titles on so many million 'illiterates' or other categories which inevitably are a bit woolly. They do make a very good case, contrary to what the people here who haven't read the book claim. But it would be interesting to find if any of it is genuinely wrong, which I'm trying to do.
No Rerevisionist you only appear to want comments that support your own very misinformed opinion.
No one is disputing that MM & AC make a good case what people are trying to tell you is that case isn't based on fact but on emotion. People have posted links which demonstrate that things you are quoting are incorrect but you stubbornly refuse to accept.
Most of us would agree with MM that high quality phonics is good for all children. Those of us who have posted here and actually teach children to read, teach using phonics not Look & Say or Searchlights or Whole Language and have always done so long before Letters & Sounds. Some of us work in schools that have never followed the Literacy Strategy or Framework choosing to use what we know works best for our children. Some posters are committed to phonics and are outspoken supporters for good phonics instruction for all children yet we are telling you the "facts" you are posting are incorrect. We are not supporters of Look & Say supporting it we are phonics teachers telling you that the book is wrong!
I also believe a number of people who have replied to you are members/regular contributors to the RRF (which Mona McNee founded) so perhaps you would like to consider why they are telling you the book is inaccurate.
mrz, I'm not sure what enlightenment the tactyc paper is supposed to offer.
I will add some anecdotal personal experience to a post by Rabbitstew above.
MY DS, age c. 3-4, memorised and recited long picture books (e.g. the Little Red Train series) 100% word perfect. At the age of 4.5, before he started school, I discovered that he could also read unseen texts fluently - basically, he was showing huge curiosity in letters and words, I got Jolly Phonics materials to 'do it properly in a way he would also encounter in school'...and then discovered that he could read the text intended for the teacher in the 'teacher's' book.
He APPEARED to learn to read through 'look and say', as in he had had no explicit Phonics instruction before reading fluently.
HOWEVER, when he was being taught phonics for encoding (spelling) at school, it became clear that he did in fact have an excellent 'self worked out' understanding of the link between specific phonemes and graphemes - he could read not because he was recognising whole words, but because of the link he made for himself between how each part of an individual word sounded and how they looked on the page. So he taught himself to read through working out how phonics worked.
On the other hand, there were certain common words that he did recognise 'by shape' and I found it interesting as he encountered a very wide range of books in Reception that a change to an extreme or unusual font in a book woud affect his ability to read those 'little' words (like 'the' or 'and') but made no difference to his ability to read words like 'extraordinarily' or 'catastrophe'.
I just mention it as an example where what 'appears' to be going on (a child learning by 'look and say') and what is 'actually' going on (a child working out the basics of the phonic code by themselves from repeated looking and saying) may be two different things.
I am a huge supporter of high quality phonics teaching, supported by phonically decodeable reading schemes....sadly not a combination that is universally found...
Can't remember a thing about the Frankfurt school now but during my degree I remember being profoundly irritated by them.
ITA was an extremely stupid idea that I'd be prepared to bet left most children struggling to read and spell. Certainly everyone I ever knew who had suffered from it.
Teaching the shape of words is arse about tit - people who CAN read recognise the shape of words, but that isn't how you learn to read in the first place. It's like saying 'ooh, an experienced cook can taste food and know whether to add more salt, therefore you don't need to give someone new to cooking any instructions, they will just work it out for themselves'. Madness.
My point was that it was quite common pre 1945 which contradicts points 1& 4 of the OP
but it seems the OP is only interested in government conspiracies where I believe the problem is often government ignorance when it comes to education
I found lots of extracts but most required payment to view the full doc.
Sorry Bruffin, that was exactly the point I was making - that even the proponants who THINK a child might be learning by look and say may in fact be observing a child who learns to read by phonics - and so claim a success for Look and Say which it does not deserve
