McNee & Coleman 'Great Reading Disaster': was look/say introduced to damage children's reading?

[Rerevisionist]

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 resonsible for the attack against tower blocks - 'Utopia on Trial')

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

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.

I know MIL was told by the hm that they weren't allowed to use any other method

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.

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.

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).

DCs started nursery in 98 and 2000 and both were taught Jolly (synthetic phonics) in nursery and primary school. DH started school in 66

Literacy levels have remained almost static for the past 70 years so everyone certainly didn't learn to read pre 1945.

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

ITA was intended as a "simplified" alternative writing system (invented by the grandson of Pitman who invented shorthand) not as a phonic reading scheme

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.

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

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).

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 neccesary 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!!!!!!!

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.

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 wioth the outline of a word.

@tallulah - yes, it was 'holistic' or 'gestalt'. Sounds like your 1990s expereince 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 hoeplessly abandoned 'dyslexics'. But she's very hard of eharing and difficult to discuss with.

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.

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.

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 arne't likely to take that view.

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.

Nobody paid for private tutors in the 50s, other than 'Enid Blyton' type families, surely?

EtInTerra, perhaps oddly, McN & AC state that in the 19th centruy 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 cna teach a non reader in half a week, how come htere are any non readers? SUpoosedly there are or were soemthing 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 subequent remedial work; and the unions get stronger; and the whole bureaucratci empire expands.

The social engineering argument only seems bizarre if you haven't investigated. For example grammar schools were phased out by politicans, but they were careful not to phase out public schools.

There's a lot of 'history' and evidence in this artcle by Joyce Morris -well worth a close read:

www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j17/fonicsfobia.php

allchildrenreading I did have a link to stats but it is no longer working I'll see if I can find the data elsewhere

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 Adorno, Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse) will get you nowhere other than a degree in very obscure Marxist philosophy.