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')

arrts.gtcni.org.uk/gtcni/bitstream/2428/29273/1/Primary_Review_Tymms_Merrell_4-1_report_Standards_Quality_071102.pdf

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.

www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000650.htm

www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j19/nce.php

Th NCE comissiond th National Foundation for Educational Research to produce this study, Standards in Literacy and Numeracy 1948-1994, authrd by Greg Brooks, Derek Foxman and Tom Gorman. Ke points from its introductry sumry ar:

^"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.

[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.

www.phonics4free.org/mona-mcnee-biog

^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.

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/

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... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_England#Introduction_of_compulsory_education )

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.

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.

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

@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!

@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.

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 (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.

@CecilyP - You seem unable to understand and reply to specoific 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 tiem will turn them into fluent readers?

You don't seem to understand Rerevisionist that most of what you have posted is incorrect.

@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, authrd 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!

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.

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.

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.

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)..,,,,,

''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

@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)

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.

1870 Education Act www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/school/overview/1870educationact/

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,

"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 bllcks.

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.

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 kater - her list of publiscations come to a sudden stop in 1994.