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')

I've read the Foster Education Act and of course all it's provision wasn't carried out school attendance ran at about 82% rather than universal attendance (some things never change it seems)
Try Hansard Rerevisionist you can read lots background and supporting information

Thanks maizieD, you have managed to say what I wanted to say, but much more succinctly.

I wish people who don't have information wouldn't waste their and my time by posting here. However, I don't want to specifically reply or there will be more tantrums.

The working hypothesis is based round
[1] Look say was obviously unworkable; how was it foisted on people?
[2] Was the foisting deliberate and part of social engineering?
[3] There are tricky factual issues: what were standards of reading/writing before and after? I'm not so concerned with comprehension or critical abilities, as these tend to come later or be dependent on external things
[4] Were the fashionable, 'guru' driven, novel systems in fact used? Common sense suggests actual classroom (and homework) practices might well not be those officially laid down

McNee & Coleman's book is useful as a reference point, although - and it's of course not alone in this - it's a bit flawed by e.g. presenting theories about the brain which may or may not be true, and e.g. by being a bit personal when discussing brush-offs by education politicians, and by people preparing official reports. However they are naive about the way beliefs are forced top down, which suits me as they have no axe to grind - in fact, they don't even know there's an axe.

Evey schoolchild has a mother, so mumsnet might provide useful feedback, though they mostly (I'd assume) tend to be too young to have much feel for state and other manipulation. But, still, worth a try.

1. Look & Say wasn't unworkable - flawed but not unworkable many children did learn to read but it failed others
2. The UK followed the USA (as they often do) only to realise the mistake too late
3. sorry but what are you actually asking?
4. The gurus like Margaret Meek, Frank Smith were part of academia rarely seen in the classroom for most of the period you are talking about there was no official practice laid down ... a statutory curriculum began in 1988 with a literacy strategy (not compulsory introduced in 1998) even so schools were still free to teach reading how they considered best)

McNee and Coleman's book is emotive misinformation that you are accepting as correct ...it isn't.

So, the manipulation had to be very subtle, then, mrz. Teachers had to be so convinced by crackpot gurus that they followed their advice to the letter, even though they didn't have to, because the State at that time did not prescribe one method of learning to read - unlike now, when the State does appear to have decreed synthetic phonics to be the best method. We must believe that the synthetic phonics being pushed now is not evil manipulation by the State but an enlightened good idea, but the look and say method that was particularly fashionable post-1945 WAS the result of cynical state manipulation.

I reckon there are an awful lot of clever, sneaky people out there, trying to trick us into rejecting synthetic phonics by pushing it overtly, making it look like State interference. The same people in the past got everyone to buy into look and say by making it look like an enlightened good idea that wasn't being thrust upon them by the State. Or maybe we should be rejecting synthetic phonics, because it is being thrust down our throats so much these days, it must be a conspiracy. Mmmm. I think I'll have to go away and think about that one.

Ah, yes. I know. It's not really the State that's manipulating us. It's a shadowy group of super-powerful puppet masters who all meet together in secret and decide world events and dictate how individual states and the people within them should behave - right down to the smallest details. They have all manner of sneaky means by which they brainwash us and cause us not to believe that there is actually just this one super-group of evil masterminds in the world pulling all the strings. They manage things to make it look like human beings are fallible and weak, even those who seek power, but actually they personally are not.

Actually, they aren't that sneaky. They call themselves the world market and pretend they aren't even human. They hide behind their edifices.

The only tantrums appear to be yours!

In answer to your hypotheses:

1. The Whole Word theory of teaching reading has been around for at least 100 years. In fact, I've been doing some googling and it seems to have been known and implemented in the late 18th century. Advocates were Psetalozzi (Swiss) and Mann (US). It was given a huge boost by Frank Smith in the 1970s. He was (still is, for all I know) a smooth and highly charismatic operator. As far as I know he had never actually taught a child to read before promulgating his theories.

Whole Word was embraced enthusiastically by much of the teaching profession. 'Imposition' is too strong a word to use, though it was certainly 'imposed' locally in many instances (i.e by HTs or School Boards)

I suspect that when McNee & Coleman are talking about Whole word being 'foisted' they may be referrring to the UK National Literacy Strategy, in place from 1998 to 2007. This was non-statutory (as is the currrent guidance) but very heavily pushed by govt & LAs and it needed a very strong HT to resist the pressure to conform.

Look & Say is not 'clearly unworkable' in that a significant number of children appeared to learn to read with it- some learned to read well, some learned to read after a fashion.

2. Of course it is not deliberate social engineering. Keeping part of your populace ignorant can be a pretty dangerous thing, as the Bourbons discovered in France and the Romanovs in Russia.

3. Tricky indeed and impossible to be 'factual' about as reliable statistics don't exist (as I said earlier)

4. Yes, they were...

LOL @ rabbitstew...

I blame sesame street. I never trusted that big bird.

I can't quote from authors and studies the way most of you have done here. But I really enjoyed reading up on the L&S versus phonics schism a while ago. Anecdotally I can't help feeling that L&S produces faster results. You can teach a child to "read" a simple poem in a few minutes. Whereas it would take much longer to learn how to construct all of the sound combinations therein. I saw someone damning mixed approaches earlier. In formal teaching that might be correct. But speaking practically, don't we all employ a mixture of L&S and phonics in our lives? Some words, as someone else mentioned, have to be memorised.

That's not the same thing as having a L&S vocabulary and limited formulaic reading books. That part of L&S was badly wrong.

I agree wholeheartedly, cornsilxk. And I don't even think big bird was actually a bird... I think he might have been human. That's just evil.

he was human ...that would be a conspiracy surely.

I wish I could delete the spammers. However, I can't.

Let me just comment on 'mrz'. He/she says look say was 'flawed but not unworkable.' This is not the case. It is complete and utter rubbish. It couldn't possibly work. Let me suggest a look at this
nukelies.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=14
which is a multi-language outreach page including scripts in a few dozen languages. It makes it clear assuming you're not familiar with a few dozen languages how the components of words are essential - the subdivision into words is itself somewhat artificial. Word shape is a completely useless basis - words have to have shapes, but these vary with typography and layout and are USELESS is teaching spelling. I'm using McN & AC as a handy starting point as it is meaty with info. You are dismissing it without having read it.

'Foist' was my word; but several posters here can't even understand how ideas and attitudes can be forced into circulation - they don't seem to know about advertising, pressure-groups, legal forces, editors, military force as imposing beliefs.

I'm trying to find people who see the importance of the issue and take it at least fairly seriously. Please don't spam.

'I wish I could delete the spammers. However, I can't.

delusions of grandeur right there

Rerevisionist you saying it couldn't possibly work does not make it true sorry but how many children have you taught to read? How much real research have you done other than reading MM & AC book? How much action research have you carried out into reading?
Look and Say worked for many children and failed just as many that is a fact and no matter how much you stamp your feet and sulk you can't change facts.

People can't see the importance because what you are writing isn't correct.

'mrz' do me a favour and off. Thanks. I'm sure you recognise the word.

No you need to help with that I don't think it's in my vocabulary but I think I'll stick around anyway.

So the OP wants the posters who actually have experience of teaching reading to leave the thread. Funny that.

Sorry, my message was garbled by the system here. I was inviting mrz to * * * * off. If that gets through. It's a subtle joke based on his belief system.

corn, I'm interested in the totality of reading, not someone who posts without understanding the issues.

Then perhaps you can answer my question about how many children you have taught to read by any method? or what experience you have of reading instruction? or how much actual research you have undertaken into reading ? (reading MM & ACs book doesn't count) Any serious action research into reading?
Have you explored the British Education Index?

Mrz is very much a lady, rerevisionist.

rerevionist - you really are so rude! I won't take it personally though.