Flipping heck. DD book this week is....(166 Posts)
Scheme is ORT once a week, the old ones which I thought at 20 years plus was bad enough.....
Today she bought home on the non scheme book day.....
Mr Brown's goat. It was written in 1972. The infamous Roger red hat and Billy blue hat.
It's utter tripe. Repetitive tripe.
Is anyone else subjected to these? Weren't they banned?????
As someone with hearing loss I've been able to read without learning phonics but having learnt phonics with my children I can read more new words and I can also now pick up on words I'd incorrectly misheard. I believe learning phonics would have helped me stop putting a barrier up. I used to hate reading out to class because I was guessing.
Your children were lucky alanyoung thousands of others were less fortunate and I'm sure many had teachers and parents with positive attitudes to reading too
Feenie, yes they did.
It's much more to do with the teacher's and parent's attitude to reading and how they deal with their charges
I see. And how many hundreds of children whom you have personally taught to read are you basing that on, hmm?
Feenie, yes they did. We brought ours up with these schemes and they did very well. It's much more to do with the teacher's and parent's attitude to reading and how they deal with their charges. To some extent, it does not matter what they read as long as they read. Once they are on the road, they will soon pick their own material.
We have a friend whose children were brought up on an older scheme and now the daughter (aged almost eight) has read all the Harry Potter books. I'm not saying these books are suitable for that age, mind you, as I've never read them myself!
A landmark study (Conrad 1979)
300 deaf school leavers(15.5-16.5years)
Median reading age (RA) 9 years
Recent studies have confirmed findings (Chamberlain & Mayberry 2000; Traxler 2000)
But ... a minority (5/205 teenagers - Conrad 1979) at reading level expected for age
'Good' deaf readers (Conrad 1979)
'Good' DRs were 'phonological coders' vs 'visual coders'
Phonological coders made more errors on rhyming word memory list
Visual coders made more errors on visually similar non-rhyming words
Phonological coders had a 2-year advantage in reading comprehension vs 'visual coders'
Conrad argued phonological code essential for development of reading, even in deaf youngsters.
I also wernt to school with kids who had been taught using ITA as well Miaow, they had to go in the remedial class to catch up.
"I just got Peter and Janed to death - poor Jane... always helping mum with the housework."
Yeah, while Peter went fishing with his dad. I credit Peter and Jane with my early feminism.
Was he taught the sound of the week and lots of rhyming words? Current phonic teaching is very different.
DS was taught reading in the late 1980s using a phonics-based method, and using Roger Red Hat amongst others. For what it's worth, he learnt to read very easily and in fact became a voracious reader.
The NDCS definition of deaf is
The word deaf is most often associated with two meanings:
Notated as deaf with a lowercase d, this refers to either one or many of whom deafness is predominantly an audiological experience. This means someone who is partially or wholly lacking hearing, either when they were born, through pernicious disease early in life, or later in life. The term refers to the idea in the strictest sense: the condition and state of being deaf, nothing more.
They use the word lacking whereas Johnson used wanting
Within this guidance document, the word deaf is used to refer to all levels of hearing loss, which could be mild, moderate or profound (see page 8) and refers to children who communicate orally and/or through sign language. It also includes children who have a hearing loss in one ear.
Phonics is recognised as a key tool in the acquisition of literacy skills for all children and should be made accessible to deaf children.
I'm specifically not talking about children who can hear a little bit either learnandsay and as you see from the NDCS quote neither are they!
I made a bargain with dd in y1 that if she read a page of reading book I would sign it off along with recoding what she did really read at home. Then every 2 weeks I would say dd did not read this book as she has no interest in it and too easy for her can she move up. The teacher eventually took her off reading scheme and dd chooses form y5 or 6 class, the library or books at home. Once they can read I find the banded books a massive hindrance in exploring good books.
I don't know what you're talking about in relation to Susan's site. And I'm specifically not talking about children who can hear a little bit. I am specifically talking about people who can't hear at all. That is what it was invented for.
If you want to have a completely different argument based on what you think I'm googling and using definitions you've made up, then go ahead. Just don't have that argument with me.
No learnandsay I asked you about your statement
"Who said this? It's bollocks. There was a perfectly good reason for inventing it."
You googled and found Susan's site but that doesn't support your statement
"No it isn't! Phonics is clearly useless for teaching people who can't hear."
So you didn't follow my links to the National Deaf Childrens Society or the Scottish Sensory Centre ?
For what it's worth I'm teaching a deaf child to read using phonics ...Did you know that 1 in 5 children in Foundation Stage and KS1 have a significant hearing loss?
This is Peter
This is Jane
I like Peter
I like Jane
Except I didn't.
( child of the 70's)
No it isn't! Phonics is clearly useless for teaching people who can't hear.
All you've done is to shift the argument to what wanting means. In this context it refers to the lack of. If the sense is lacking it is absent. Absent means not present. It does not mean partial. That would be present but weak.
The relevant definition would therefore have been "having a partial sense of hearing." And that is not what Dr Johnson wrote. You can feel free to rewrite his dictionary if you like.
Deafness doesn't actually have anything to do with the question ...just a diversionary tactic really
Why are you assuming that the definition was different?
Johnson's definition is no different to current definitions
Why are you using a modern definition of the word deaf in relation to an invention that is over two hundred and fifty years old? The relevant definition will be equally as old. And states that deaf is "wanting the sense of hearing" Samuel Johnson.
I taught myself to read at a very early age but it doesn't mean that is the best or even a good way for everyone to learn
I learnt to read with a mixture of Look and Say, phonics, and following a story whilst listening to a competent reader read it (Storyteller anyone)? I think the latter cannot be understated, and yet I only ever did that at home, not at school.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.