Rabbitstew:
No, he data didn't say SP was involved.
Nor did it say any other method was involved.
You can't assume SP was or wasn't involved.
You can't blame school underachievement on the part of 20% of the population on the double whammy of mixed methods plus deprivation and imply that SP would be the antidote.
What the data suggests is that children are both learning to read (80%) and not learning to read (20%) using what we may assume to be a variety of methods, taught by a variety of teachers, and that 'in general' (please note what that term means, i.e. 'in most cases', or 'in enough cases for trustworthy conclusions to be reached') there is a correlation of non-learners and learners with the distinction between fsm and non-fsm recipients (yes, fsm is a blunt instrument, but it is good enough to provide reliable conclusions). In other words, we can conclude with a reasonable amount of confidence that the salient difference between the learners and the non-learners is the home environment. Yes, there may be other factors. that much is also clear from the statistics, but the main cluster of issues associated with home environment remains.
'the original thread, which was talking about the majority of children...'
The majority of children learns to read. 80% is the majority. They learn to read using all sorts of methods. So to argue that SP is a better method to teach the majority to read is redundant and not worth the time of Gove or Rosen or anyone else for that matter. We could all just shrug and move on with our lives.
Actually, the whole point of the Gove/Rosen discussion, the focus of all attention, is the 20% that fails to learn to read, and what Mrz and others have been saying here is that SP can teach everyone to read, even that stubborn 20% that has proved unreachable, the population that correlates to the bottom 20% socio-economically.
'...not the minority who are so unready for school that they really shouldn't be there, yet, at all (not in "school" as the term is traditionally understood) - and then the discussion should be about WHEN to start teaching them to read, rather than how to go about it.' -- This is indeed another matter, and age when formal education starts is a fair point imo.
'mathanxiety wants to turn it into a discussion on whether SP can cure all the problems of the 20%'
You have managed to get the absolute wrong end of the stick there. Which is ironic considering that reading is the topic...
What I have suggested is that there are systemic issues preventing children at the bottom of society from learning to read, to read well, and to read sufficiently well that the large achievement gap between top and bottom achievers (who correlate with top and bottom socio economic strata) will be narrowed or erased and that SP alone, as advocated by the SP fans here, can not do this. What I have suggested is that to tackle the systemic problem, a wider approach than just the classroom-focused SP is needed. Not that SP can cure all the problems of the bottom 20%.
What SP promises is to teach children to read. What other methods promise is also to teach children to read. Currently, about 80% of children learn to read, using whatever method their teachers preer, and they learn well enough to reach at least the low end of the 'acceptable' benchmark, with some doing remarkably well.
Mrz and IndigoBell, are those schools at the top of the league tables all teaching using SP?
How can you tell where those schools fall in terms of FSM pupils' percentage of the total?
Unless the data can be sorted by SP vs. nonSP schools, and sorted by FSM vs. nonFSM recipients, then what you have shown me is that yes, some schools are successful. What you haven't shown me is what they have done in order to produce their results.