Is Phonics the best way to teach children to read? Part 2

[maizieD]

Math nabbed the last post of the previous thread with the Wyse and Styles critique of the Clackmannanshire research. I'm afraid this cannot be the last word.

This is a response by one of the Clackmannanashire researchers to general criticisms (including Wyse & Styles).

www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID=170&n_issueNumber=59

I think that it should be understood that Wyse & Styles are not cognitive psychologists critiquing research by a peer, but are 'education' academics whose fields of interest, while they may touch on 'reading', are not directly connected to the initial teaching of basic reading skills. (Although Wyse claims an interest in pedagogy a look at his research fields shows that they have nothing to do with the teaching of foundational reading skills).

Styles is a 'Professor of Children's Literature'
www.educ.cam.ac.uk/people/staff/styles/

Dominic Wyse
www.ioe.ac.uk/staff/EYPE/59721.html

I can't find anything either published on the initial teaching of reading before the Rose Report of 2006 challenged the status quo which they supported (i.e the National Literacy Strategy 1998). Which leads me to conclude that neither took a great deal of interest in the topic before then.

On the other hand it might be noted that at least one of the Clack researchers was an ex teacher who favoured 'mixed methods'; so, could hardly be accused of bias in favour of SP.

Oh maizieD she's going to ramble on for the next 999 posts now!!

Sorry, mrz...

I've no idea as to whether it's ultimately the best way, but it seems to be a bloody good starting point for most children if it's done well.

I appreciate that this response is a little less erudite than the rest of the thread.

No, Rosebud, it's quite refreshing to read a response which is less than 1000 words, actually.

Maths - what about reading the Aborigine initiatives taken by the Aborigine lawyer Noel Pearson who put reading instruction at the heart of his schools' project (a Territory that is deprived enough, Maths?).

What about visiting those schools in one of the most deprived boroughs of this country, Newham, and looking at the reading instruction and effects of the schools' ability to teach all children to read? Then you could compare the instruction in these schools with, say, my neighbouring school in Oxford which manages to get only 50% of children up to SETs 2 Level 4?

what about reading www.piperbooks.co.uk/documents/The_Long-Term_Effects.pdf
'We wished to investigate the research findings cited to support this set of beliefs and to consider whether they might be attributed to two flaws: inadequate early-age instructional programs and/or flawed research design and execution. We were interested to see what would happen with a well-developed instructional program and sound research design and execution.'
Shock horror, Maths - the research (published in the respected Reading Research Quarterly) demonstrated that those from low SES backgrounds performed as well as teenages from more prosperous backgrounds. These children had the inestimable advantage of good early SP reading instruction.

What about trying to understand the difference between an All Party Committee and an All Party Select Committee?

Radical idea this - what about listening to researchers and teachers who have been immersed in the study and processes of early learning to read? Your attitude towards those on this board involved in teaching children to read and in dealing with the fall-out of illiteracy falls far short of rational argument.

Please concentrate your 'research' findings on those who study and/or teach early reading. It would limit the length of your posts.

Why not start a thread on the recommendations made by Louise Casey - this might, at least, be a positive contribution from you.