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

My children arrive in school unable to speak never mind read. They grunt and point. They lack basic vocabulary and don't own books or see adults reading.

You can't defend the indefensible

Having 100% of children actually able to read is what turns around a culture, niminypiminy - and yes, in a fairly book/reading deprived area.

I think that's overstating what phonics can do. No, actually, I think it's overstating what school can do. And I say that as someone who has spent her professional life working with people who have been failed by the school system, and I say that as someone who is passionately committed to the power of education to transform lives.

Reading is amazing, life changing. But on it's own it cannot turn around a culture.

Sorry, did a rogue 'it's'

Being able to read in the first place changes a culture. Being able to read unlocks the doors to a love of reading for children who were never read to, or given books as toddlers.

I feel sorry for you if you can't see the point of making sure every child is able to unlock those doors, niminypiminy, or if you've never seen it happen.

Thought it was phonics 2.00 mins.

I was not taught phonics at school in the late 80s/90s it was all new to me when my son started it at school.

Can I ask; I started school in 72 and my mum maintains that I was taught a new method of learning to read, they did it for a year (or 18 months) and when my brother started in 74 they had given it up and gone back to their usual method.

She said this is why I can't spell & my brother can

What method might they have been trialling then?

And I say that as someone who has spent her professional life working with people who have been failed by the school system

I say what I've said as someone who can make sure that no child is failed by the school system - not in terms of being able to read.

Possibly ITA Katy

Feenie, what I meant was that when you get a ratcheting up of aggression and defensiveness, that's usually a sign that something else it as stake besides the matter under discussion. Aggressive language (whether that be word choice or tone) is a symptom -- that tempers are flaring, yes, but also that the person who is using it is feeling under attack. So I wasn't trying to say that you were mistaken in your contempt for people who think good teaching doesn't include vocabulary and comprehension. Rather, I was commenting on the emotional content of the utterance, signalled by the word 'nutjobs'. And I was trying to say, rather elliptically, that it's because phonics as a system (whatever its virtues and benefits) is also value-laden, an ideology, that criticisms of it feel like an attack. Which, I must stress, they are - in my case - absolutely not meant as.

For the politics of it, I think this article by Michael Rosen should be required reading.

For instance:

'A teacher tells me that her head teacher has asked that all "real books" be removed from early years' classrooms. (Jargon alert: a "real book" is the kind of book that you see in a bookshop, like Where the Wild Things Are. The books that will be staying in the classrooms of these three-to-six-year-olds are booklets that teach children how to read through "synthetic phonics". When schools buy these schemes - so long as they are the government-approved ones - they will be given subsidies of up to £6,000 per school...)'

You say that we need phonics-only for the children who are disadvantaged by not having books at home - and then we take away all the ones that are worth reading from school as well? What child can learn to love reading in an environment like this? I think it is verging on the criminal.

That could explain why I struggled with writing too!

niminypiminy that is not what feenie said

She said anyone who believed that teaching phonics means that we don't teach vocabulary or comprehension must be a nutcase ...i think she was being very reserved in her choice of words.

Finally, before I leave the discussion, I hope it is clear that I do think all children should be able to read, that I think reading is life-changing. Please do not impute to me views I haven't expressed. What I said is that I don't think that schools can change a culture.

I think Michael Rosen could fall into the category of those who haven't a clue what phonics teaching is... and no I don't say that we need phonics only for children who are disadvantaged by not having books at home unless you think we should disadvantage those children who do have books by not giving them the skills to read them.

History shows that schools can change society

The headteacher mentioned certainly falls into the nutcase category

and it's £3000 match funding not a £6000 subsidy

Mrz: "anyone who believed that teaching phonics means that we don't teach vocabulary or comprehension must be a nutcase" and my summary "your contempt for people who think good teaching doesn't include vocabulary and comprehension" come to exactly the same thing. I have not misunderstood (that's because I have higher-level comprehension skills ). It was the aggressive language, which was actually 'nutjob' to which I was drawing attention.

yes Katy that would explain your problems

What a fun thread this is. So sad to have missed most of it, but I was reading a book...

I just love to be branded as a right wing fascist because I teach children to read with phonics.

To think that I thought that I was teaching phonics because it produced the best results. How naive can I be?

And that is speaking as a professional who spends her time working with children who have been failed by good old 'mixed methods'.

No it was an opinion of the state of mind for such individuals who seriously believe that ... they probably believe the Earth is flat too and Elvis works in the local chippy

Well, I disagree - I think reading can turn around a culture, and has done so in the past.

I don't really see why this is so controversial tbh. Strong message for years and years in the Daily Mail from parents, employers, teachers and media that reading is the ultimate priority (not the only priority, obviously) for primary education and that not enough children are learning to read to a high enough level during primary education. Strong indication from long experience that the majority of children will learn to read whatever method of teaching is used. Strong indication from research that a significantly higher proportion of children learn to read fluently if taught synthetic phonics well from the start, than if taught mixed methods or whole word approaches. Government and educational institutions apply research to policy and roll out a common version of synthetic phonics to all schools. Isn't that how the world should work, on the whole?

Flaw in the diamond is that synthetic phonics is frequently not taught very well, unlike in research projects. I can say this as a TA who has probably retarded one child's progress in reading this year

- hopefully I have it sorted now

But I didn't read for nearly 2 yrs & writing has always been a problem for me (even just forming the letters)

Ah well

'I just love to be branded as a right wing fascist because I teach children to read with phonics.'

You need to wok on the contextual semantics. Being right wing is not fascist.

'To think that I thought that I was teaching phonics because it produced the best results. How naive can I be?'

That is naive. Try teaching whole word and see how far you get. That won't go down well with the educational establishment.