1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

How were we taught to read?

Discussion in 'Primary' started by Lilybett, Feb 29, 2012.

  1. To be absolutely fair, dillsage, I can't see any reason why eddie's programme wouldn't work in that it is giving children lots of reading practice, which can never be a bad thing. Many might not get it any other way because of time constraints on staff.
    It's all the ridiculous assertions, contradictions, unproven 'statistics' and unwarranted attacks on the SP bogeymen (women?) that are making me doubt his sanity.
  2. That's why I asked about the data about the impact of your programme on spelling.
    There is no such data nor will there ever be any from my work. I will instead rely on the English results obtained at Key Stage 2. In one of my primary schools involved in the 2010/11 pilot project, they predicted that only 48% of their pupils would get at least a Level 4 pass. In fact they secured a 98% pass with 45% getting a Level 5 English - their best results since Key Stage tests were introduced and naturally, they are now committed to PL - that does not mean they have abandoned Jolly Phonics - it just means they have widened their horizons. The same is true of a Staffordshire primary in which all 9 children predicted to achieve L3 achieved L4. That is the kind of objective outcome I will be looking for in the current project.
    I think it wholly reasonable to claim however that if children substitute lots of practice at spelling words corrrectly for lots of practice at spelling words creatively, they are more likely to learn how to know when words 'look right. You may quite legitimately disagree with that and I would not challenge your disagreement. I will be content to see Key Stage 2 English test outcomes improve significantly.
    The Year 2 project is indeed the more interesting because it seeks to prevent rather than belatedly 'cure' reading difficulties before the children absorb an expectation of failure which will blight the rest of their education. As far as teaching children with English as their second language is concerned, there are some schools involved in the project who have large numbers of such children. Naturally I make no claims in this category. Language is the basic and therefore the foundation literacy skill - any child with a language deficit will inevitably have other literacy deficits. The resources I produced was developed to boost the general literacy skills of children who have no language deficits. I am happy to leave that specialist area to others with specialist experience and knowledge in that area. Personally, I have none. My efforts are restricted to boosting literacy skills generally among children with average language skills. I would not in fact recommend using my resources with such children since their results would be likely to distort the outcome as they were no developed with such children in mind.
    " I'm not saying that it doesn't, indeed it seems very likely that it would work, but it seems a bit unfair to criticise others for something you are doing yourself!"
    I fail completely to see where I have criticised anyone for doing something I am doing myself - At this stage, I require no proof because I am making no claims - I MAY make claims after my research has been completed but not before. I have no intention of adding another episode to the litany of failed literacy disasters that have been inflicted on schools in my lifetime. When I do make a claim, you may rest assured that it will be accompanied by objective and readily verifiable proof. To date, every participating school that has returned the 'First Reaction' proforma has formally stated that they have no objection to be identified as being a participant in this project.
    Good night.

  3. So googling 'perceptual learning' I finally understand what Eddie is trying to do.

    He wants kids to learn to read the same way they learnt their mother tongue.

    Which is a really interesting concept - given that an adult can't learn a new language the same way a baby can.

    I found this 'perceptual learn to read program' (http://www.perceptuallearning.com/pfaq.php#1) - which is only suitable for babies 6 - 36 months!
  4. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    I think that might be a rather limited view of PL that you have come across. If you start with the Wiki article you might get some better definition of it, and some papers to link to.

Share This Page