 |
Debbie Hepplewhite's SyntheticPhonics.com
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Debbie Hepplewhite
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 325
|
 Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: Horror: The NATIONAL roll-out of Reading Recovery |
 |
|
I've copied my most recent blog comment to add to the message forum because I think this issue is so important and so awful. I do hope that people have the patience to read it and consider this extraordinary set of circumstances.
In my opinion, the very least that teachers and parents should do is question in their schools this contradictory and unsatisfactory state of affairs.
At the very least, schools and parents should have the choice as to which type of intervention children should receive if they are slower to learn (or come to learning later - such as children joining schools later or arriving from other countries with additional languages).
If a school describes that they do both synthetic phonics teaching and Reading Recovery type teaching then they cannot be doing synthetic phonics teaching - or they cannot be doing it well enough.
NO school and no teacher who had really tried and understood the synthetic phonics teaching principles would go on to use the Reading Recovery approach to teaching reading. The two approaches are opposed and the Rose Report has rejected the multi-cueing guessing approach with good reason.
If you are a parent or school affected by this conflict of teaching, please do something about it. Feel free to contact me for information and support if you are worried about this state of affairs.
| Quote: | I'm guilty of not keeping up with my blog - but regular readers of http://www.syntheticphonics.com/ and http://www.rrf.org.uk/ will know that I am so busy - spread so thin - and have been focusing on my wider commitments of teaching, teacher-training, consultancy and 'growing' my new online synthetic phonics programme http://www.phonicsinternational.com/ .
I also do my best to have a family life!
I just had to write a new post on my blog, however, in response to the announcement that the Year One intervention programme, Reading Recovery, is to be rolled out nationally by the government.
This is so very upsetting and the question has to be asked loud and clear, "Just what is this government playing at?"
How can it be that the government, for a start, is allowed to roll out a specific named programme?
How can it be that the government has invested in a national review of how we teach reading on the one hand - and adopted the recommendations of Jim Rose - and yet continues to promote the very reading strategies that the Rose Report rejects?
How can it be, following the Rose Report, that the strongest schools and the strongest pupils are to receive the recommendations for teaching reading which amounts to synthetic phonics with no guessing from multi-cueing - and yet the weakest schools with the weakest pupils are to receive the very reading strategies which Rose rejects?
And then, to make matters even worse, the government has now announced that ALL schools are to follow the intervention reading strategies which amount to the strategies that Rose rejects?
You simply couldn't write a plot like this one could you!
The goverment has sent to all infant and primary schools the criteria for evaluating a reading programme - and yet has failed to apply this criteria to its chosen intervention programme.
What is going on here?
Is this ignorance?
Is this a consequence of too many chiefs at the top failing to apply joined-up thinking?
Is it corruption?
It is simply an act of 'politics' whereby the government wants to be seen to address the weakest readers specifically?
But didn't the House of Commons inquiry leading to the report 'Teaching Children to Read' and the Rose Review look into how best to teach reading?
And isn't the government's synthetic phonics programme 'Letters and Sounds' providing a model of evidence-based and leading edge practice of how best to teach reading and spelling?
And how can it be that anyone can suggest that the weakest pupils need the very strategies that research has shown for many years (whole language and mixed methods) do not serve learners well?
How can it be that the government would promote a specific intervention programme which has caused such international concern leading to joint presentations by researchers to query its use?
The questions go on and on.
The biggest one of all, however, is why the teaching profession itself is not up in arms asking of the government, "Well, just what do you expect of us in our schools. You give us new guidance describing in detail how we are to teach children to read and spell - and then you tell us we must use this other method with our weakest readers - suggesting that Reading Recovery should then influence teaching throughout our primary schools. How can this be? What EXACTLY do you EXPECT us to do?"
This is such a nonsense - and it is breaking the hearts of those of us who work with the weakest and struggling readers in our schools.
There is NO-ONE in the Reading Reform Foundation that would recommend the methods for teaching reading of the Reading Recovery programme - no matter what the difficulties of the learner.
Not only that - all synthetic phonics programme designers would willingly put their programmes up for comparison with objective testing - they are SO confident in the teaching approach that these programmes promote.
And yet time and again the government avoids proper comparative research.
Considering the fierce, fierce and long-standing debate over how best to teach reading - isn't it about time that the government behaved entirely consistently and accountably and transparently - for once? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Debbie Hepplewhite
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1554364155
Kate Griggs and I appear as guest speakers on 'More 4 News' regarding Labour MP Graham Stringer's comments on 'dyslexia'.
We were in agreement that the Reading Recovery programme is not suitable for intervention and that synthetic phonics is the way forwards for all children including those with difficulties.
You may need to 'scroll' to view the appropriate video entitled 'Is dyslexia for real?' - and I don't know how long this video will be available via the link above.
Comments welcome! 
I'll also add a link to the news items featuring Graham Stringer's comments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Debbie Hepplewhite
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?t=3808
I thought I may as well provide the link to all the news articles on Graham Stringer's comments and the conversations that took place on the UK Reading Reform Foundation message board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Debbie Hepplewhite
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Susan Godsland, 'The lady of the links', flagged up this important report on the UK Reading Reform Foundation message forum and pointed to the references to Reading Recovery on pages 37 to 40. Anyone interested in this topic may be interested to read the comments!
Susan wrote:
This publication by the 'independent, non-partisan educational charity', Policy Exchange, is an 'absolutely must read':
Rising Marks, Falling Standards
By Tom Richmond and Sam Freedman.
Quote:
| Quote: | One of the most enduring debates in education concerns ‘standards’ in primary and secondary schools. Literacy, numeracy and science form the backbone of the school curriculum with the intention of equipping pupils with these core skills by the time they leave school. The purpose of this report is to investigate the extent to which literacy, numeracy and science have improved since 1997 with a particular focus on SATs at age 7, 11 and 14.
Through a detailed analysis of national school performance data, a number of serious concerns are raised with regard to the current state of pupils’ core skills. In addition, the curriculum from the ages of 14 to 16 - which includes GCSEs, Diplomas and Apprenticeships - is assessed in terms of its rigour, complexity and credibility. We also put forward our recommendations for the future direction of primary and secondary education, including a new model for SATs, more freedom for schools in how they teach core skills and creating a better set of academic and vocational options for pupils at age 14. |
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/assets/Rising_Marks.pdf
Pages 37-40 slam the research behind UK RR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Debbie Hepplewhite
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/44/4405.htm
This is an easy to read and very, very important report published by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology select committee.
It should go down as another historic document in its revelations - and it verifies what I have been suggesting about the wrongful promotion of Reading Recovery by the UK government.
The report confirms that synthetic phonics teaching is the most effective for mainstream teaching but should also be used for intervention.
It is a 'must' read for anyone who is interested in the teaching of reading and the need for evidence-based practices in our schools. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
