Reading in the 1930's or 1940's

[yvette37]

Hello,

Does anybody know how they used to teach reading in the 1930's or 1940's? or earlier for that matter. What did they use instead of the 'Synthetized Phonics'? I am quite curious about this.

Thank you

Yvette

I think that disruptive children can be taught in separate schools using a different approach. However, it is the state's duty to provide that good approach for these children. They should not be left to langusih out of school for several months as seemed to be the case with the children interviewed on the news recently.

Claig, you're absolutely right. And there are some PRU teachers who read this forum and have been commenting on exactly that. If heads are breaking the law by taking short cuts and standards between PRUs vary widely I'd imagine that's to do with state regulation of the provisions for challenging children. OFSTEAD's website does refer to the inspecting of them, but it also lists long strings of challenges that they face in everything from finding the right specialist teachers to equipment and so on and so on. So I'd imagine that what you're referring to is between the department of education, or whatever it calls itself this week, and OFSTEAD.

If they just had a couple of smelly, foul mouthed and stubborn children per class life for teachers would be a doddle.

If people think that that is all that teachers have to deal with in a class of 25 -30 children then they are sadly mistaken.

In actual fact, some of the most 'challenging' children are very clean.

LearnAndSay - I don't want my children being taught next to little urchins. - So you keep on saying.

Have you decided whether you're going to go private or home educate?

HE didn't work so well for your sister...... Though I'm sure it would work much better for your daughter. Because she's very clever.

I like my daughter's catchment school and it has a highly praised parental inclusion policy. I'm expecting things to go well there. I'm not aware of a large number of behavioural problems in the school but because of its SEN focus it does have a higher number of staff than the average primary. I don't think we could afford private education and I'm against HE because I think it isolates children. I also think that there are things parents can do to supplement their children's educations. Of course if after attending the school it turns out to be gravely disappointing then of course we'll have to have a rethink. But we're hopeful at the moment. It's a shame that it's not more academically focussed. But the head has a clear agenda which she's happy to explain to anyone. And she's clearly successful at pursuing it. Parents who want more academic input are just going to have to find it in other ways. But the school appears to be supportive of this. (And supportive of parents generally, which is not true everywhere.)

There's very little parents can do if their child has to sit next the nasty, smelly, disruptive urchin especially if your child's teacher reads these threads

Wow. Just, wow. Learnandsay I truly hope you don't voice any of these concerns, even subliminally, in the presence of your DD.

I resent the implication that good parent=good student. Of course there is a statistical correlation with achievement and background but even in nice academic MC schools like my son's you get, well, my son. He is from a MC, professional and academic family. He is high achieving but would possibly distract your DD with his fidgeting and inane questions, refusal to write etc. He might even smell as we only bathe him 2 or 3 times a week .

I'm thinking of it from the other side, the slightly annoying, fidgety boy is seated next to the prim girl that has grown up with a mum who thinks that disruptive and smelly children should be removed. I can see what could happen in that situation and it makes me sad although luckily DS probably wouldn't notice any snootiness .

OK, the smelling is probably a red or stinking herring. But I find it hard to see what the argument for including disruptive pupils is. And by disruptive I don't mean fidgeting or asking questions, I mean attacking other people inside the classroom or outside it, breaking up the lesson, swearing, (anti-social behaviour in general.) I say no to counselling, no monitoring, no hoping they'll grow out of it. Just take them to the front door, kick them out and shout after them, and don't come back!

That's a rather harsh way to treat a four-year-old.

especially as you don't know how your child will be when they enter full time education

Brilliant, learnandsay. And what if that child's behaviour is entirely due to their heartbreaking lives at home. Would you kick them out then?

The sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children, Feenie.

Christ, you are depressing, learnandsay

I really hope your DD never misbehaves learnandsay. I also hope you don't speak of these (fairly extreme) views in front of your DD.

Glad to hear my DS is acceptable to you at the moment but my point is that he might not be next week or next year. Poor behaviour was never a consideration two months ago let alone pre-reception. I prided myself on his behaviour then (and still do actually, he isn't disruptive at all at home but then it's a totally different environment).

'hard to see what the argument for including disruptive pupils is'

rather depends on your viewpoint

really, why keep them alive at all? what's the point? isn't there some sort of uninhabited island they could be shipped to?

when they're in separate schools, what about the ones who are more disruptive than others? do they get sent to separate separate schools?

what about, say, a child who swears and breaks stuff, but never hits another person, compared to a child who never ever swears, but frequently hits out under stress? will there be different schools for each one?

and what if my teacher's pet of a ds, the sort of child anyone would like to sit next to, reacts to his father's depression and has a bout of disruptive behaviour? how many incidents would it take before he was off to the school for 'the others?'

The child who is disruptive because of the death of a parent, the child who is disruptive because of abuse, the child who is disruptive because they have lost their home, the child who is disruptive because parents have split up ...there are many, many reasons and I hope your child is never that child or is they are their teacher has more tolerance than you.

Every single one of you is one hundred percent correct, and I bet there are hundreds and hundreds of other existential permutations which could make a child's disgusting behaviour understandable, (if not condonable.) But isn't there a difference between a school and a psychotherapy ward? These children all need help, sure. But do they need it in school where teaching is supposed to be going on. If the broken children were removed then the teachers could get on with teaching.

Sometimes, when you are in a hole, it is better to stop digging.

I don't think that I'm in a hole. I genuinely disagree with the idea of incorporating disruptive children in classrooms.

Just because people don't agree with my viewpoint doesn't mean that it's wrong. What some people are saying is that some children have reasons why they are disruptive. I don't disagree. But they should still be disruptive elsewhere.

learnandsay hopefully you are never in the position where other parents make such remarks about your child

And where is 'elsewhere', then? Where do you propose putting these children?

That a psychotherapy ward previously mentioned perhaps