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

Reading Recovery...

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by kenadams777, Jul 20, 2010.

  1. I haven't had time to read all the links above yet, but this is one of the reasons why I am against the 'observation' culture where adults overhear children and take notes rather than use every opportunity to share language with children in a variety of ratios - whole class, group, one to one.
    I think every adult should be relating to the children in their care almost all the time whatever the ratio. Think of all those missed opportunities for language when adults are standing/sitting around taking copious notes.
    How much better that time could be spent.
  2. That doesn't mean that I think every child should be speaking with an adult all the time - but for a lot of the time.

  3. OK - I've now read some of the links. Whatever the reality of the matter, I still think adults standing around 'observing and recording' is bordering on weird - and they would be better off being good adults and looking after/playing with/teaching etc, the children.
    Which doesn't mean that children shouldn't have time to do their own thing!
  4. Msz

    Msz Established commenter


  5. No. I mean "evidence" not "anecdote". The difference is very important and undoubtedly the tendency to be unscientific when formulating education policy has led to initiatives like ECaR.
  6. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Or in this case ECaT
  7. What a good thread this is! Yes Msz Children in general are the same but certainly in many communities there are social circumstances now which make your observations and the evidence you quote the persuasive reality. Although fifteen years ago I had many similarly delayed children as are described the difference today undeniably is the amount of exposure to television and visual media without interaction.
    I think as others do in that the observation culture resulting from the need to gather unnecessary evidence, along with the fear of moderation, the EYFS profile and the statistical use of data by LEA's has resulted in far more restricted, closed language interaction than any nursery teacher would swear should be the case.
    My plea really is that good a good nursery programme, rich in interaction, nursery rhyme, song and story, clapping and circle games etc, often carried with such tradition by nursery nurses and many of the old PPA playgroup staff is still as essential as it was. In fact it needs the extra time of a foundation stage and year-one to really barer take root and bear fruit.

    I also want to add a thank you to Msz for the link to the 'why they can't read'. It has struck me very powerfully and you convinces me that synthetic phonics should be a familiar, adaptable and well-used tool in the toolbox of every teacher. I do not think however they should be inspected, assessed and graded on their use of it in a mechanical and formulaic way.
    I agree with the critique of excessive directives, over-observation/ written assessments, of insufficient correction and repetition but then the report gets into pure British class prigishness eg. children should be seen and not heard etc as in statements like........Children are firmly assigned to sets according to ability in all subjects. There are strict rules of behaviour throughout the school: pupils are not allowed to talk to each other in the corridors while walking from one classroom to another; or again ?We don?t waste time with PSHE ? there?s no CircleTime in this school. We don?t go in for delving into motives.? How anyone can teach without PSHE and an interest in children's motives is beyond me. If that is 'traditional' education then it short changes the emotional development of children without a shadow of a doubt no matter what miss-bossy-boots-no-time-to-waste-no-time-to-stop-and-stare-head might opinion. Nor do I think the article gives a good insight into the rigour and discipline- albeit different- inherent in effective teaching under whatever banner.
    So again a big thanks for the link.

    As in all things it seems there is no black and white, every choice has its consequences. I am convinced about the need to give children systematically the right tools to decode written language. I am not convinced that this is necessary before six as there are many examples of this being perfectly appropriate and even more effective when children are 6/7 although it would beggar all our early years setting to know how to engage children before that. Just because we have an industrial productivity approach to education from the age of 3 be it independent or state, doesn't mean that it can't change now we are in a post-industrial age. Thanks.
  8. and sorry to say it, but at the same time humbled and deeply troubled by this one....

  9. " No. I mean "evidence" not "anecdote". The difference is very important and undoubtedly the tendency to be unscientific when formulating education policy has led to initiatives like ECaR."

    I wasn't intending on formulating education policy - simply offering my opinion in agreement with another poster on an internet chat forum...
  10. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I think it's pretty clear from reading a number of pieces of research that one often contradicts another so perhaps instead of dismissing those at the sharp end's evidence as "ancedotal" it should be acknowledged that the people who work with young children year in and year out are better placed to judge.
    It's also quite ironic that on a forum with numerous threads crying for the expertise of teachers to make judgements about their class without the need to provide " mountains of evidence" that another teacher should be so dismissive ...
  11. I feel in such a contradictory position because I do believe in experience and I am so against modern moderation and judgement processes - and I am very supportive of, and defensive of, our teaching profession.
    But here is the big but...
    We know that when it comes to teaching reading, teachers may have years of experience - but they have their 'own' experience - and they may not know what type of effect can be achieved by methods which differ from their own.
    So, whilst all teachers may be superb and get superb results to all intents and purposes - and certainly teach their hearts out - sadly, when it comes to reading and writing instruction, teachers need to look beyond their own experience and certainly keep an open mind.
    Further, I do agree entirely that a look at the research seems to show that one piece of research can, seemingly cancel out another piece of research.
    But there reaches a point where there becomes a prevailing body of evidence and then this surely cannot be ignored.
    There is now a prevailing body of evidence, for example, that systematic phonics teaching (involving teaching the alphabetic code and the skills of blending and segmenting) is better than no phonics teaching - or incidental phonics teaching.
    The bottom line is that teachers have to work with the resources that they have in their settings - and I suggest that many teachers are not supported enough to deliver the kind of teaching that is most effective because they themselves are neither knowledgeable enough, nor trained well enough, nor supported well enough, nor staffed well enough, nor equipped with systematic resources well enough - and so on.
    What is really, truly, heartening, however, is that there are people still interested enough to post contributions to a forum whatever their views, understanding, beliefs - because it certainly shows their commitment and we are all on the side of the children!!!![​IMG]
  12. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Sorry Debbie but my post was in reply to this
    and this
    I apologise for taking the thread away from subject briefly but I'm shocked by teejay's dismissive attitude to Early Years staff on this and other threads
  13. Msz,
    I knew what your post was in response to, but I did have much the same thoughts as Debbie about the dilemma in which we find ourselves in regard to 'evidence'. Unless a teacher is very widely read (and how many do have the time to completely master one topic, let alone all the 'issues' related to teaching?) they have to rely on the accuracy and integrity of information they are given by the training institutions and by the Dfes, through their training, publications and advisors. As much of this has been patently lacking in a solid evidence base ( Learning Styles, Brain Gym, the Searchlights strategy anyone? ) is it surprising that at one extreme some teachers just carry on with what they believe to be 'right' while at the other extreme some teachers refuse to believe anything they are told unless it is evidenced by Gold Standard research and peer review!
    Though I do admit that the poster to whom you refer is very extreme and shocks me, too.
  14. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    sorry maizie I don't think I need to be very widely read (although I have studied for a MA in Early Childhood Education) to recognise that the children entering our early years unit are unable to string words together to communicate and indeed some "grunt" instead of using words. It's what I see and hear and it's what other teachers report they are seeing and hearing and no amount of research or reading changes that. I am not suggesting that what I see or hear has any influence on educational initiatives or indeed that it should do so. I am merely reporting on what I observe in response to a post suggesting that
    From what I see (and what other teachers also report seeing) children are developmentally different in that more children are exhibiting language and physical skills of much younger children
  15. Thanks for your reply. I am not in a nursery class at the moment so I have to stand aside. I suppose what I am trying to say is that the child is no different in stages of development and his developmental needs now as he was twenty years ago. Having heard many times people (parents and teachers) think children are more advanced nowadays just because they have wider locabulary or know how to operate the family video or computer, when imitation and greater access are such obvious factors now. Perhaps there are many forms of malnourishment, modern forms are not necessarily edible food related (although there are still issues of suitability and healthy food etc.). By the way. Would I be the poster that is being referred to here as very extreme? It would be good to know. ANd if so anyone kind enough to let me know about what? CHeers
  16. You are not the poster being referred to as extreme - teejay10000 is. He/she has posted some derogatory remarks regarding early years teachers recently.
  17. Goodness, gracious, no!
    I don't have any problem with your anecdotal observations on children's language development on entering school. It has been discussed several times on here and the general consensus is that it is very poor and getting wose. It was the principle of how much weight should be given to research evidence, as opposed to assertion /perception/opinion, which I was suggesting is a grey area. And I think that was what Debbie was suggesting, too.


Share This Page