Why is MN so obsessed with reception reading?

[skiphopskidaddle]

It's a marathon, not a sprint. It doesn't matter if Johnny is on red and Amy is on lilac as (a) different schools go at different paces and (b) children develop different skills in different order.

I can't quite believe the number of reception reading threads I've seen this week along the lines of "what colour book is yours on?". I'm going over to the behaviour/development board now to check for obsessive posting about when children learn to walk. Cos it doesn't matter either, in general.

community.tes.co.uk/forums/p/211373/2934441.aspx#2934441

Ofsted says EYFS is making education better so will it be scrapped?

It's ripe for the misunderstanding so, and this quote from Mrz's TES Ofsted link (Nappy curriculum..) indicates that while there may be one specific reason for EYFS's existence, once it was in place all sorts of things happened as a result, some of which were predictable and some of which were perhaps not, human nature being what it is --
"'The report says that an increase in the number of childcare providers receiving good or outstanding verdicts from 59 per cent to 68 per cent was due to the introduction of the EYFS."
-- no indication here as to who is providing this assessment of childcare providers, but if it is parents, then they are using data to judge performance of CMs and probably using their own DCs' performance and the feedback as factors too. If it is some other group, then the reports and assessments are also being used as a means of assessing CM's performance. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that CMs are going to be judged on whether the children in their care are meeting benchmarks.

It continues -- "Patrick Leeson, Ofsted director of education and care, told The TES that having a single framework was valued by those working with young children. ?The evidence is that the EYFS is broadly working and has been helpful in driving up quality and therefore improvement in the sector. There has been greater professionalisation of early years workers, better training and better support,? he said.""
-- I want to ask him how he defines 'quality' and 'improvement', because I suspect a standardised framework whose purpose is to gauge the quality of CMs' work depends not on the neatness of their handwriting in filling out standardised report forms but on the ability of those CMs to show that their little charges are meeting the benchmarks. Not suspect, I am very certain of this.

I think it is the application of methods used in business (quality control language, etc.) that really, really bothers me here.

But in any case why spend so much on developing something that is apparently really vague and not really meant to be referred to? Hopefully Magdalene is right to say it will be scrapped. If the Danes can get by with a measly two pages, yet presumably grow and develop and eventually learn to read, etc., then so can the Anglo-Saxons surely.

I would assume since the report is from Ofsted they are the ones providing the assessment not parents

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/preschool/450533-eyfs-dubbed-the-nappy-curriculum-is-the-first-legislation-to

On what basis are they conducting the assessment and coming up with their figures? Performance of the children/ percentage meeting benchmarks? Neatness of forms returned by CMs?

Ofsted inspect all Early years provision including childminders pre schools day nurseries and Children's Centres.

and yes a good friends was give satisfactory because she didn't have nice policies

blackletterday

The jargon is quite easy to decipher once you are aware that there is an on-going Education ?War?.

On one side are those who adhere to a variety of personal philosophies, beliefs and political views which can be loosely summed up as the ?Progressive? group, and on the other side are those who think education should be based on what has been proven to work, the evidence-based group.

The problem we have is that the ?Progressive? belief system, which is fiercely endorsed by our University Schools & Faculties of Education who control access to the teaching profession, dominates all aspects of compulsory schooling in the USA, UK, Australia & New Zealand.

The evidence-based practioners are found mostly outside of the K-12 compulsory schooling field in science-based fields like children?s medicine and psychology.

For example, the research trial that proved synthetic phonics is the most effective way to teach all children to read was undertaken by psychologists, not Ed School ?Perfessors? who continue to deride it.

The person who posts as ?mathsanxiety? is a classic example of a Progressive educator. The Progressive philosophy, which has been the dominant philosophy underpinning all compulsory schooling for over 100 years, and in all that time, the Progressives have never been able to deliver a single jot of proof that it is effective.

The Progressives believe in a mishmash of ideas that can be summed up as ?don?t teach?, ?no facts?, and ?make the child/student not the adult/teacher responsible for the child?s learning.

Progressives abhor direct, explicit, intensive, systematic teacher-directed instruction based on a road-map curriculum with frequent assessment to ensure progress.

They advocate the so-called ?child-centered? philosophy in which the teacher is the ?guide-on-the-side?, providing children with ?experiences? and ?activities? during which they expect the child, once they are developmentally ?ready? (?), to work out for themselves what they need to know.

Progressives reject any kind of proven protocol, preferring to make strategies up as they go along which they consider to be a more ?professional? practice than using something that has been proven, by evidence-based trials, to be effective.

Education reform movements like the UK Reading Reform Foundation, the US National Right to Read Foundation, and the Australian DDOLL Network advocate strategies and protocols that have been scientifically proven to be effective, for example, direct, explicit and systematic instruction instead of play-based, child-centred activities, and synthetic phonics instead of Look/Say or analytical phonics.

The two sides in the Education War can be summed up as Fad-du-Jour Education versus Evidence-based Education.

I would not count myself in the 'Progressive' camp except where the education of children up to 6 is concerned, and my DCs have been sent to schools of the 'old school' type though I could have sent them elsewhere -- and at less cost too.

They attended a Catholic school (in the US) which turned out class after class of students very well versed in the traditional 'Three Rs' and had been doing so for about 90 years, impervious to the various winds that blew back and forth over the educational landscape over that time, first steered by a teaching order of nuns and then under lay leadership, when DD1 first darkened its doors.

While my DCs themselves learned to read after no formal teaching or only a little exposure to formal teaching (from age 3.5 to 4.5 for all 5 of them) their school taught formal phonics beginning in First Grade, so at age 5-6 with most students aged 6. Once they entered First Grade, formal teaching began and it didn't let up until they were more than ready for the rigours of the next stage (only very rarely did a student fail an admission exam in any of the highly competitive Catholic high schools in the city or suburbs nearby).

By the time First Grade arrived they had developed the emotional maturity to cope with testing and the possibility of failure or success, and the responsibility of doing homework and turning it in. They were given appropriate homework from what I felt was an appropriate age (6 onwards). They worked hard, in teacher-led classrooms, at traditional subjects, following a curriculum that was developed along traditional lines. The classrooms were not divided into ability groups though, which I felt was a very good thing. They laboured at maths and science and 'social studies' (history/geography), they did endless grammar and comprehension questions, weekly spelling tests and writing of sentences involving the spellings, book reports, various writing exercises to practice their skills in different styles (expository, persuasive, etc).

They were tested in nationwide tests administered in Catholic schools and some other systems such as the Department of Defence school system (Terra Nova tests) every two years in fundamental areas such as Reading/Language arts, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies. The school performed well above average in all areas at every grade level. My own DCs performed well above average too. They took weekly or fortnightly classroom tests in most subjects except art. I thought all of that was a Good Thing or I wouldn't have sent them there and paid for it too.

All I want, Ymeyer, is a single jot of evidence that teaching children SP at age 4 is a good thing. So far not one advocate of SP for 4 year olds has been able to provide it. I am beginning to suspect this may be because since it is in fact a massive experiment that is being carried out on the 4 year olds of Britain, there are no data available yet and of course by the time there are, it may well be too late for those who have already been the guinea pigs.

The Irish Department of Education decided to ditch so-called evidence-based methods which were beloved of Irish teachers for decades in favour of a more child centered approach for the education of young children (to age 6 or so) after reviewing the best evidence and arguments available, including observation of the great success of Scandinavian states where play-based and child-centered approaches seem to be working extremely well until the introduction of formal teaching at an age when children in the UK have already been slogging away for several years.

It is very simplistic to suggest that teachers and teacher trainers can all be divided into two camps: the ?Progressive? group, and the evidence-based group.

The vast majority are far more sensible and fit into neither camp. They understand that only half of all English words are spelt entirely phonically and can be taught by the phonic method for reading and writing, while the rest need more than that. They carried on teaching sensibly during the whole word madness, and i.t.a. They are doing so during the current SP fad.

They let the reading wars wash over them and continue to teach with a realistic appreciation of English spelling. They know that the reading wars are mainly career moves. In British education u have to come up with some 'new' idea to get ahead.

Ruth Miskin and Debbie Hepplewhite both started out singing the praises of Jolly phonics, but instead of co-operating with Sue Lloyd and producing one really brilliant phonics scheme, they both went on to help confuse teachers by producing schemes of their own. Now they tour the country, selling their schemes to schools, under the guise of teacher training.

The Rose review noted that ?all developers of commercially produced phonic programmes provided assessment data that showed very substantial, sometimes spectacular, gains in the performance of beginner readers on their programme. Since a wide array of different tests was used to measure these gains, it was not possible to compare the value added by each programme with any accuracy?.

Using different tests is a common way of ?improving? results. When Labour introduced new SATs tests in 1998, the percentage of 11-year-olds getting level 4 in English jumped from 64% to 71% that year and to 75% the next, followed by three years of complete stagnation. Yet Labour ministers always claimed those increases as proof of how they had improved primary education and no journalist ever challenged them on it.

The Clackmannanshire study proved the superiority of SP by changing the teaching of reading in many ways: giving it more time, consistency, resources, assessment, one-to-one, planning and parental involvement. It was a shoddy piece of research aimed at promoting a particular theory. With so many variables, u can't tell what was responsible for the better results. And they weren't so great, because Scotland uses different tests.

Take a look at my website and blogs and see for yourself what learning to read and write English involves and then consider whether any particular teaching method can really work for all children.
Google Masha Bell.

Ruth Miskin and Debbie Hepplewhite both started out singing the praises of Jolly phonics, but instead of co-operating with Sue Lloyd and producing one really brilliant phonics scheme, they both went on to help confuse teachers by producing schemes of their own. Now they tour the country, selling their schemes to schools, under the guise of teacher training.

Do you know, masha, you are utterly despicable with your mean minded, spiteful, distortion of the truth.

I am well aware that you are acquainted with the publisher of Jolly Phonics, as I am, and I am absolutely certain that he would be as disgusted by your attack on Debbie and Ruth as I am. So too would Sue Lloyd be.

Why don't you just stick to boring people rigid with your campaign for simplified spelling?

Seconded, maizieD.

So far not one advocate of SP for 4 year olds has been able to provide it.

Can you identify the advocates of SP for 4 year olds as you seem to have become fixated on this?

The Clackmannanshire study proved the superiority of SP by changing the teaching of reading in many ways: giving it more time, consistency, resources, assessment, one-to-one, planning and parental involvement. It was a shoddy piece of research aimed at promoting a particular theory. With so many variables, u can't tell what was responsible for the better results. And they weren't so great, because Scotland uses different tests.

Yes. I'm with you on Rose-it was also highly, highly selective about evidence it gathered, and (in undergraduate terms) fraudulent in claims it made of others (confusing SP and systemic phonics). The academic evidence-gatherer in me is appalled.

BUT the evidence for systemic phonics teaching's superiority is clear, and is not generated by those 'selling' it (rather mean). And as teachers we have two systemic schemes in play, both of which are SP based. It would be evidence-defying madness not to use them.

ymeyer

"Education reform movements like the UK Reading Reform Foundation, the US National Right to Read Foundation, and the Australian DDOLL Network advocate strategies and protocols that have been scientifically proven to be effective, for example, direct, explicit and systematic instruction instead of play-based, child-centred activities, and synthetic phonics instead of Look/Say or analytical phonics."

Well, no they don't. In 2005 the RRF heralded a series of studies which showed that 'first, fast and only' could be taught as proving it was optimal, despite lack of consistent control groups.

I'm a huge fan of SP, and would defend it. I'm less keen on the SVR, but see it's relevance in underpinning SP and as a brilliant model for EARLY readers.

So what does that make me? The pastiche is crude, and also rather offensive.

Have you read the Stranmillis study?

Mrz, I will go back over your posts and find your laudatory references to SP and your insistence that this is the way to go for 4 year olds/ Reception.

Adela, I agree that the Progressive/ evidence-based references do justice to no-one and to no theory.

I would like to point out that for a group that allegedly enjoys hegemony in the educational establishment, the 'Progressives' seem to be very out of luck in Britain, and also that for an 'evidence-based' method, SP seems to offer precious little evidence for its touted merits for the very young children involved in learning to read in Britain; meanwhile, across the globe, other countries, including many huge, English-speaking ones, seem blithely unimpressed by the arguments put forth in favour of exposing children under 6 to the sort of formal teacher-led experience in school that teaching SP requires.

And I also agree with the observation wrt the RRF study. SP may 'work' but is it optimal for the very young children who are exposed to it and are important aspects of their development sidelined in school because of the primacy of teaching reading? (You can teach 2 yos to roller skate but is it really sensible or worthwhile or even in the best interests of the 2 yo? Are there better things they could be doing with their time?)

Would you like to point to my posts on synthetic phonics on this thread?

mathanxiety - nobody can come up with plausible reasons for teaching 4 year olds to read because there just aren't any! It is a loss of childhood. And why on earth are they at school for 6 and a half hours a day? Sorry, not really the point of the post I know! Is it right that teachers see children more than their parents? It has been very hard for me, as a parent, for me to 'let go' of my lovely girl. She's growing up far too quickly and I feel I am missing out on a lot now she is at school most of her time.

I'm not sure how teachers see children more than their parents magdalene? I'm with my class for 25 hours a week I'm with my family much more than that ...

Well, children are at school 32 hours a week and when they come home they have 2 hours before they go to bed. Most of the time they're at home they are asleep!! Do you not think the days are far too long for both the children and teachers?

magdalene judging by the complaints on MN when school is closed for training or snow etc or doesn't provide before and after school care you in a minority.

Personally I think it can be a long day for some children. Others will have spent long hours in childcare from a very young age (we have nursery aged children who are dropped off at day nurseries at 8am brought to school nursery at 8.45 by the staff go back to the day nursery at the end of the session and are picked up at 6pm by parents).
My day is much longer than the children's day and even then there isn't enough time for everything.

But mrz schools shouldn't be used as 'free childcare'. If it is snowing and school is closed, I think it's a great excuse to have a fun day! My Year one DD still gets very tired (in reception she was so exhausted I got quite concerned) so she doesn't do any after school clubs. I send my child to school to be educated but it seems schools have had to take on the role of the parent. Teachers are now seen as social workers, nutrition experts, educators etc. I really enjoy spending time with my girl and I enjoy the holidays when we can relax. When I took her back to school after the christmas hols, I did feel sad.

No they shouldn't but that is the message parents have been receiving and yes I spend as much time on social care as I do teaching.

Do you feel resentful at all mrz? I mean all that hard wok (degree and then PGCE) and to end up doing a job that two or three people could do. The workload must be massive. No wonder there is such a burnout rate amongst teachers.