That was a nice message, homemama, thank you WHen i first read that it was the tone you disagreed with, I was all set to say how the tone must be in the head of the reader - but your post had a very mice tone. You would have thought that I had been posting about phonics long enough to have learnt how to phrase things in the most appropriate way - however, I know there are others who are far more eloquent than me. However, I am not all frustrated and cross when I am posting - usually just enthusiastic and passionate. Perhaps the words I choose can unfortunately be read in a couple of different tones... I will try harder in this one.
However, I do still have to be dismissive of people who insist on teaching what has been proved to be an ineffective method in the first instance. Well, perhaps dismissive is the wrong word - I do think it is bad teaching to persist in using methods that have been proven to fail children on a consistent basis. Wouldn't everyone?
We know the NLS promotes mixed methods because of the Searchlight Strategy. We know this fails children because up to and perhaps over 20% of children are failed readers every year. This is not just my belief as the statistics are out there for all to see and this is why the Government has been doing all these reviews and analysing the current achievements of the NLS.
We're talking about different teaching methods and adapting your teaching to suit children's different learning styles which generally sounds great. However, I think there is a difference that perhaps is causing trouble in these discussions that has not been clarified. There is, as I see it a) teaching reading by different approaches e.g. whole word, phonics, guessing/predicting, mix of all etc etc and there is b) using different approaches WITHIN the same teaching method e.g. focussing on either the phonological side, or visual side of an exclusive phonics approach.
Do we all agree that reading is a phonics based activity? Although children appear to learn to read by other ways e.g. whole word, would we all agree that our written language was created to represent the sounds in our spoken language and that however children learn, what we all do as successful readers in interpret those letters back into sounds. For those that cannot do that, thay employ other methods that are more inaccurate e.g. looking at how adults read, many admit they don't know what to say when they see some letters and look at words within words etc and end up saying the wrong thing!
It has been shown that for those children that learn to read within a whole word teaching environment or using the Searchlight strategies, what they are eventually doing IS using phonic knowledge, but that this is acquired more chaotically and often by the child working it out as they go along e.g. memorising words and the phonics clicking by accident as they get more fluent.
The thing is, for those children that can't manage to read via the Searchlights, intensive phonics is often employed as a remedial strategy - why not just teach it in the first place?
And another thing is, intensive phonics instruction has been SHOWN time and time again to work in nearly 100% of cases - and so it should, surely? It is showing children how to interpret all the letters and sounds from the written word back into the spoken word, and surely that is what we are all doing when we read. To do so fluently and effortlessly with secure understanding enable us to devote more time to comprehension and appreciation.
So, when a language is constructed to represent the spoken sounds of English, why would you BEGIN by getting children to memorise words by the whole shape, or by using partial phonics and guessing/predicting when it is riddled with inaccuracies and far more effort than is necessary? I appreciate some children find the auditory side hard, or the visual, and that is where the differentiation comes in and the teaching can be adapted to the different learning needs, but still teaching the same thing. If a child struggles with observational drawing, say, do we not give them hints and tips to get a little betetr at it? We don't suggest taking a photograph and using that instead as a shortcut.
So, within synthetic phonics, you would still adapt to suit the children. For those that have a strong visual memory, the letters and words culd probably be remembered more effortlessly. But they might find it harder to HEAR the sounds in segmenting and blending, so you would focus more on that side of things, but still within an sp philosophy. Similarly, you would employ visual skills and support for the child who is ace at hearing sounds but can't remember the letters that match or the whole words they have blended.
But I find it a totally impractical idea to suggest, which is what is seems like people are doing, that you fling the teaching if reading at children with a variety of shortcut methods e.g. whole word for the visual learners etc and predicting/guessing - which appeals to which learners?? - etc which might get them going and feel like they are learning but just delays the process of decoding the sounds and letters.
I will continue to believe this all the while everything in my experience and research tells me so and while people who disagree can say nothing to convince me.
And the thing is, many people must agree with me - in fact, have discovered this long before I did, because pro-SP teachers have been campaigning for years; schools have adopted SP and had AMAZING results; parents have taken it upon themselves to teach it as it makes so much sense to them and they are frustrated with their children struggling and the Governement has finally accepted the logic and the evidence as they are moving toward a more exclusive SP teaching as well.
I appreciate there will probably be still some children who will struggle, but the numbers are so few compared with the searchlights, surely it is a better way to begin?
I can't agree with people that disagree but I have to agree to disagree with many people, because it seems there will always be some.
By the way, I do agree with you about teacher messageboards. I have become very selective about what I read these days - although it is a fantastic forum to learn an awful lot about teachers' persepctives and knowledge and experience.