Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Primary' started by eddiecarron, Mar 6, 2011.
And the point of your ramblings is....?
The one thing every poor reader has in common is low self-esteem. These children did not come to school with low self-esteem - their self-esteem was eroded in schools by inappropriate teaching by teachers with only a very sketchy understanding of the reading process. There is no professionally agreed definition of reading. Imagine the chaos in medicine if every doctor was left to define significant technical terms idiosyncraticallty as is certainly the case in teaching. This just doesnt seem very professional somehow and could go a long way in explaining why we are so far down the European literacyc league table!
Do you never enjoy a book so much you read passages aloud to share the joy with others/
Anyone with sigficant understanding of the reading process knows that reading aloud is a very different process from reading. Reading aloud is not receptive - it is expressive! Reading aloud is not anti-social - it is socially interactive. Reading generates no sound - reading aloud does. Reading aloud is an act of communicaton - reading is the exact opposite! I know that these things often have to be explained to teaching assistants but I find it astonishing that they should need explaining to a teacher. Is there anybody out there who is actually satisfied the literacy standards of children graduating to secondary schools?
I agree that reading silently and reading aloud satisfy different purposes but surely both have a place in our lives???
Actually, I have worked with children in a school where they enter Reception with extremely low self esteem, given to them by the parents they are raised by.
They do indeed but you have to be able to read a passage before your are expected to be able to read it aloud! Reading is the assimilation of meaning - reading aloud is communicating the meaning of a passage. It is a contradition in terms to say to a child "Bring your book, I want to hear you reading." It is the act of asking vulnerable readers to communicate the meaning of a passage that erodes self-confidence when they are unable to read it, let alone communicate its meaning to someone else.
On the question of children coming to school with poor self-esteem , you are correct but I am referring to a lack of self-confidence in their ability to learn to read which is common to all poor readers that I am specifically addressing.
I wonder what teachers think they are teaching when they ask a vulnerable reader to read to them if they know that this will succeed only in further eroding the child's self-conficence.
Do we really need a whole new thread to say the same things you said on your last one? I have found that reading aloud can help children's self esteem if done properly.
You are assuming the child hasn't had many opportunities to read the book (passage) silently and develop understanding before being required to share this with the teacher.
I find it strange that children often say "can I read to you ?" if it makes them feel so bad about themselves
I am indeed making that assumption because as a retired teacher turned researcher, I visit lots of schools and know that that is invariably the case. Reading and Reading Aloud do not simply serve different purposes - they are quite different processes. When I set out to improve the literacy skills of Year 6 children, I exclude two things. They are (1) Phonics - analytic or synthetic and (2) asking children to read passages cold to an adult (or anyone else) I focus exclusively on exercising all of the literacy skills ie reading, writing, listening, spelling and grammar. One of my current candidate schools in Staffordshire predicts that 22 out of their 60 children will achieve Level 5 English in the imminent Key stage 2 test. I predict that 50 of their 60 children will achieve Level 5 English.
I find it strange that with such certainly, one fifth of children will leave school effectively illiterate. I find it strange that in sixty-nine schools, not one child achieved L5 English in 2010. I find it strange that one adult in five was unable to read the dosage instructions on a child's medicine bottle. I know that children love to show off things they are good at and when a child asks to read to me, it is invariably because they are good readers.
What happened to 98.5% L5?
Then you should have had 70 schools because we had over 50% of our children achieve level 5 English
What happened to 98.5% L5?
I assume you are referring to this reference on another thread. The 98.5% stands. This school will achieve only(!) 83% Level 5 this year because due to computer problems they lost half a term at the beginning of the project. The school had the good sense to also institute my recommendations in Years 4 and 5 and this means that they will move inexorably towards a situation in which 98.5% of their pupils will achieve Lever 5 English routinely every year. This is because they have realised that the ability to acquire skills, unlike the assimilation of concepts, has nothing to do with IQ. If in fact 83% of their pupils achieve L5 English, this will represent a 130% improvement in real as opposed to predicted achievement. For my past, I will be happy if this is in fact achieved. The head of the school will be ecstatic. I generally anticipate that in the first year of using this approach, a 100% improvement will be satisfactory. The head has given me permssion to identify her school but I am reluctant for the time being to do so. There are too many negative and in some cases, downright nasty people out there. I will publish the name of the school as soon as the Key Stage 2 tests are completed.
<h2> </h2>I don't understand this comment. The statistics are not mine. They are readily available government stats of the KS 2 results. 'Then you should have had 70 schools because we had over 50% of our children achieve level 5 English'
]You said in 69 schools not one child had achieved L5 English I was merely saying if you had had 70 schools (the 70th being mine where were achieved 50%+ L5 ) your results would have been better ...
You dont have to read it at all - its entirely optional. Personally, I read very few of the threads because they dont interest me. I am intrigued by the motives of people reading things that are of no interest to them. If you're satisfied with UK literacy standards then fine! I happen to be ashamed of them and determined to do something about them. A school that gets 50% of its pupils to L5 Englsih is doing better than the national average but it means that the 50% who didnt get L5 and could have done, have been failed by the system.