Appalling reading advice for parents and TAs

[Feenie]

This document is being flagged up in lots of the teaching pages i've liked on Facebook:

literacyforpleasure.wordpress.com/ta-guide-to-listening-to-reading-making-comments/

It's terrible, full of recommendations to encourage children to guess. Really depressed at the number of teachers tagging others to flag it as 'useful'. It really, really isn't.

If you're starting as a reading volunteer in September, I hope you're not given anything like this. Any advice encouraging children to guess words is really poor and awful practice.

If a child is 'stuck', encourage them to look at the sounds and blend - or if they're really stuck, give them the word and come back to it later. Feedback to the teacher on the sound they couldn't recognise is fabulous.

And thank you for volunteering in the first place - your help is invaluable and much appreciated.

Oops, that was long. Sorry. I'm genuinely gutted for some of these kids.

Of course - me too,and that's my sole motivation in starting this thread.

'Phonics Gestapo'? Wow. That's vile.

My country starts school at 6/7. But they are taught reading/writing/basic numbers in kindergarten.

That's my understanding of how kindergarten works in many European countries.

I think you've just voiced why the teachers on this thread,and others like it, feel so passionately about the subject.
Thank you for caring

There is such an enormous problem with the direction of early education, swimming against all the evidence

The phonics "gestapo" as you call them are swimming with the evidence. The views you have expressed on this thread are swimming against the evidence.

Tiggerday that's it exactly. Many kids will get it regardless of the method. Others just don't. Not getting it really does make you feel thick & useless. Don't underestimate the damage that does to self-esteem.

I pray that my bright DS just gets reading. I look forward to the day he corrects my reading of the bedtime story with mixed feelings.

I think that one of the reasons that people reject phonics is because once you are a fluent reader you stop consciously using phonics. That doesn't mean that you aren't using phonics any more. It's like being able to touch type. I don't look a the keys or think about them, but I know they are there mediating between my brain and computer.

My DD is a year into learning to read with phonics and she doesn't sound out words very often, just a couple per book. But the reason she has got so far into reading so quickly is down to the systematic phonics approach used by her school.

You mention evidence, may I ask what research papers? Apart from Walker - whom I already know about. I would like to see what you're reading.

Many thanks.

You will have notice it has all of a sudden gone eerily quiet.

You might want to read the following to see why:

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2015/03/school-reform-minister-nick-gibb-talks-about-phonics-and-gets-it-wrong-again

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/09/gibb-claims-rise-in-number-passing-screening-test-is-down-to-relentless-emphasis-on-phonics-but-dfe-commissioned-research-contradicts-this

I had really good example of why guessing doesn't work.

My ds was reading a passage to me today, and he read "reversed" as "reserved". I stopped him and asked him to look again.
If I cared about flow of reading too much and let him carry on, the meaning of the sentence could have been completely reversed!

media.education.gov.uk/assets/fi ... honics.pdf
DfE Evidence paper: The Importance of Phonics: Securing Confident Reading

www.rrf.org.uk/pdf/Matched%20Fun ... 20MG.pdf
Empirical study using a synthetic phonics programme 'Sound Discovery' from YR-KS2 (700 children) ''dyslexia eliminated'

rrf.org.uk/pdf/Grant%20Follow-Up ... 0-2012.pdf
Follow-up study: The Effects of a Systematic, Synthetic Phonics Programme on Reading and Spelling

Sound~Write's longitudinal study of literacy development from 2003-2009, following 1607 pupils through KS1
www.sounds-write.co.uk/documents ... t_2009.pdf

www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?t=1306

That should be enough to be getting on with for now, lit4pleasure. The boards do tend to be quiet during the afternoons - you yourself disappeared for most of Tues/Wed afternoon/evening, but no one was silly enough to attribute it to anything more than having a life.

Not at all sure what you think your point was with your two articles, btw - in the first, the conclusion is confused that I'm not sure the author knows what the point was either.

Neither support guessing/skipping words.

Still waiting for an answer regarding struggling, older readers whose very characteristics are typified by use of guessing/skipping.

The first item shows the writer's lack of knowledge (I note that the same writer penned both pieces). In the first few paragraphs she says that Nick Gibbs is wrong to say that a report from the Australian National Inquiry supports the use of synthetic phonics since it refers to "direct systematic instruction in phonics" and does not specifically mention synthetic phonics. She is clearly unaware that synthetic phonics is the accepted method of teaching reading in Australia. That is what the report is talking about. She also appears to suggest that there are many methods of teaching phonics whereas, as far as I am aware, there are only two - synthetic phonics (also known as blended phonics) and analytical phonics.

The second item to which lit4pleasure links simply shows that far too many schools still follow mixed methods. The conclusion it attempts to draw (many schools use mixed methods, therefore rising numbers passing phonics test is not due to emphasis on phonics) simply is not supported by the evidence in the article.

The writer in both articles attempts to suggest that the fact many schools persist in using mixed methods shows that mixed methods work as well as, or better than, synthetic phonics whereas proper academic studies show that simply isn't true.

As evidence these two articles are worthless.

When I get home, I've got a few more.

But in the meantime, have you added more links to support your claim that phonics leads to children not enjoying reading?

If you have, you might want to remove the one that says UK children's enjoyment of reading rose between 2005 and 2013. Doesn't really support your claim.

I found this googling around. It looks like a comprehensive and unbiased review of what the evidence actually says. I haven't taken it all in yet but thought it may be helpful.

www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pdf/pspi22.pdf

http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=2&article=1004&context=tllmisc&type=additional&sei-redir=1&referer=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com.au%252Furl%253Fsa%253Dt%2526rct%253Dj%2526q%253DNational%252BInquiry%252Binto%252Bthe%252BTeaching%252Bof%252BLiteracy%2526source%253Dweb%2526cd%253D1%2526ved%253D0CDIQFjAA%2526url%253Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fresearch.acer.edu.au%25252Fcgi%25252Fviewcontent.cgi%25253Ffilename%25253D2%252526article%25253D1004%252526context%25253Dtlllmisc%252526type%25253Dadditional%2526ei%253D9WotUYeWJMSTiAeUrIC4BQ%2526usg%253DAFQjCNGKIrgUyB9KFGgcc6bqjhFNmgwm5A%2526sig2%253DWlvyl8o91SxrEdIv35uQg%2526bvm%253Dbv.42965579%252Cd.aGc

The National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy recommended:

teachers provide systematic, direct and explicit phonics instruction so that children master the essential alphabetic code-breaking skills required for foundational reading proficiency.

The USA researched every major method to teach children how to read and concluded:

Systematic phonics instruction produces significant benefits for students in kindergarten through 6th grade and for children having difficulty learning to read.

The National Reading Panel, 2006

.

Johnston, R. and Watson, J. (1998). Accelerating Reading Attainment: The Effectiveness
of Synthetic Phonics. Interchange 57.

Macmillan, B. (1997). Why Schoolchildren Can’t Read. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.

NRP (National Reading Panel) (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: NICHD.

Stuart, M. (1999). Getting ready for reading: early phoneme awareness and phonics
teaching improves reading and spelling in inner-city second language learners. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 587-605.

Sumbler, K. and Willows, D. (1996). Phonological awareness and alphabetic coding
instruction within balanced senior kindergartens. Paper presented as part of the
symposium Systematic Phonics within a Balanced Literacy Program. National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC, December.

Watson, J. (1999). An investigation of the effects of phonics teaching on children’s progress in reading and spelling. Ph.D. thesis, University of St Andrews, Scotland.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MSy685vNqYk

Prof Stanislav Dehaene
Daniel Willingham
Doug Lemov

DIane McGuinness
Louisa Moates

https://www.ldaustralia.org/BULLETIN_NOV13-RR.pdf

http://www.readaustralia.com/why-jaydoncan'tread_australia.pdf

https://www.ldaustralia.org/client/documents/L%20Moats%20Whole%20Lang%20Hi%20Jinks.pdf

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED449465.pdf

Haven't read the latest on here as I've not stopped since posting, but I wanted to post an apology for using the term 'phonics gestapo'. It was an unnecessary jibe and unwarranted and I'm sorry I used such an unpleasant term. I've been regretting it all day. I hope, faintly, that it didn't detract so much from my main point that it was entirely lost.

Fair play to you for coming back and apologising, gentleness. I think there were a few posts that adressed your point.

Bedtime reading, thank you very much everyone.