Professionals linked to teaching who should know better...

This is the hub of the site and the place to post queries, start discussions and join in the conversation!
Post Reply
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Professionals linked to teaching who should know better...

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

I struggled to know what title to give this thread - to consider what 'point' I wanted to make.

I've been reading and contributing to a number of educational forums for many years, feeling the need to address misconceptions, misunderstanding and misinformation with regard to the field of reading instruction.

What strikes me is how a very few words quoted can reveal a great deal about the apparent mindset, and beliefs, of others - and in the case of teaching, I would suggest a worrying lack of knowledge and understanding about reading instruction - a field absolutely at the heart of education, a field fundamental to issues of equality, self-esteem, mental health, life chances.

So, this thread will develop to be international, calling upon various articles, blogs etc - to highlight the giveaway statements that reveal the lack of common understanding amongst those in the teaching profession...
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Professionals linked to teaching who should know better

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

First of all, I thought I'd call upon some paragraphs in Sir Jim Rose's 'Final Report' (March 2006) which refer to certain 'giveaway' phrases that are commonly-used in the teaching profession (and beyond) which reveal a lack of full understanding - typical phrases which are based on misconceptions. In other words, Sir Jim Rose himself tackled such phrases and notions head-on where appropriate.

I pulled a few extracts together from Sir Jim's report way back in 2006 to address this and you can see them here:

http://www.syntheticphonics.com/pdf%20f ... 202006.pdf

Here are some of the most common notions/misconceptions revealed by 'giveaway' phrases taken directly from Sir Jim Rose's historic report:

See how he addresses the 'children learn in different ways' and 'one size does not fit all' notions:
33. ... It was clear from responses to the interim report that some believe its recommendations ran counter to the view that 'children learn in different ways'. These views were often expressed as 'one size does not fit all'.

34. However, all beginner readers have to come to terms with the same alphabetic principles if they are to learn to read and write.

... Moreover, leading edge practice bears no resemblance to a 'one size fits all' model of teaching and learning, nor does it promote boringly dull, rote learning of phonics.
It is quite common for people to suggest that 'dyslexic' children struggle with phonics and should therefore should be taught by different methods or approaches. Sir Jim has this to say:
46. ... it is generally accepted that it is harder to learn to read and write in English because the relationship between sounds and letters is more complex than other alphabetic languages. It is therefore crucial to teach phonic work systematically, regularly and explicitly because children are highly unlikely to work out this relationship for themselves. It cannot be left to chance, or for children to ferret out, on their own, how the alphabetic code works.
Regardless as to whether children have 'dyslexic tendencies', they still need to be taught, and learn, about the alphabetic code - there is no alternative method or approach that replaces this necessity. Teachers need to ensure their phonics provision is of the highest quality and effectiveness despite children's individual challenges and learning needs.

One very common anti-phonics phrase is 'barking at print', see what Sir Jim says about this....
49. ... children may appear, some would say, to be 'barking at print' without fully understanding what they are reading' Although this is often levelled as a criticism of phonic work, such behaviour is usually transitional as children hone their phonic skills. Given that even skilled adult readers may find themselves 'barking at print' when they are faced at times with unfamiliar text, it is hardly surprising that children may do so in the early stages of reading.
Sir Jim also addresses the notion of 'individual learning styles' in this way:
58. The multi-sensory work showed that children generally bring to bear on the learning tasks as many of their senses as they can, rather than limit themselves to one sensory pathway. This calls into question the notion that children are categorised by a single learning style, be it auditory, visual or kinaesthetic.
I encourage visitors to our forum to add examples they find in current articles, blogs, forums which demonstrate the prevalence of such common misconceptions. Our international teaching profession really needs to move beyond these notions to be able to provide the highest level possible of reading instruction. Teaching must surely be informed by both the body of research findings and leading-edge practice. To this end, also, I encourage people to spread the word about utilising the freely available, statutory Year One Phonics Screening Check - as England's phonics results are providing a benchmark for the teaching of phonics which is fundamental to reading acquisition.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Professionals linked to teaching who should know better...

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

You can find Sir Jim Rose's full report here:

http://www.iferi.org/evidence/

You can find information about England's Year One Phonics Screening Check, which we encourage world-wide use of, here:

http://www.iferi.org/resources-and-guidance/

Please do let us know if you utilise this check - and this will encourage others to use it.

IFERI believes it could be a 'wake-up' call in many different ways to teachers of reading in English across the world!
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Professionals linked to teaching who should know better...

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

See my 8th posting via this thread below for an example of some primary headteachers' misconceptions - this is England despite the official emphasis on the Systematic Synthetic Phonics Teaching Principles for the past 9 years:

http://rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6184

This is my 8th posting on the Reading Reform Foundation thread above:
See this piece in 'Schools Week' as it reveals the lack of professional knowledge and understanding of some (possibly many) primary headteachers in our country.

I've written a reader's comment but this is 'awaiting moderation' so may not appear for a while:

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/heads-question ... ment-63038
Please note the call upon some misguided old ideas about reading instruction which are certainly not research-informed:
“For some children phonics is not quite the right approach. Often children who are dyslexic find phonics difficult, so we find we have to offer a variety of approaches.”

Given the focus on phonics since the introduction of annual phonics check three years ago, Ms Knapp questions the need for more money to embed the practice in all schools.

“For me, rather than focusing solely on phonics it would make more sense to invest money in how children learn to read effectively and become literate.

“For £10,000 you could invest in some good research into what makes a difference and what doesn’t with children who aren’t responding to phonics.”

The president of the National Association of Head Teachers, Tony Draper (pictured top), who is head of Water Hall Primary School in Bletchley, Milton Keynes, backed her view: “She is spot on the mark. Phonics is a very valuable tool – but it is not the only tool. I believe the phonics screening check (PSC) has served its purpose.

“They should be putting more effort into learning more about the outcomes of other methods of teaching reading, so that all children have access to varied approaches to learning how to read. One size does not fit all.”

This is my 'reader's comment' in response to the article in 'Schools Week', Heads question £80,000 to spread the phonics message:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Debbie Hepplewhite

I think it is positively scary and dismaying that we still have primary headteachers who believe there is an alternative method to phonics provision for teaching dyslexic children and who still call upon the expression ‘One size does not fit all’ – and who still think we need ‘research’ regarding the efficacy of what to teach to raise levels of literacy. No-one suggests that all the children are the same but there is only ‘one’ alphabetic code to be taught to all of them regardless of the children’s individual differences.

The headteachers’ comments suggest a real lack of professional knowledge and understanding about the international body of research regarding raising levels of literacy in the English language.

I would highly recommend that these headteachers visit the website of the ‘International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction’ at http://www.iferi.org and aim to support them in raising their levels of professional expertise.

There is only one English alphabetic code that is the basis of our writing system and it is the most complex alphabetic code in the world. Teachers need to raise their levels of phonics expertise – not look for different methods. Children with dyslexic tendencies need the highest quality phonics teaching and learning opportunities – not a move away from phonics.

It is also extraordinary that anyone could think that children enabled to decode more efficiently are disadvantaged. Since Sir Jim Rose recommended the Simple View of Reading in 2006, the teaching profession should be able to understand the different processes involved for technical word decoding/recognition and language comprehension. There is a correlation between children who can decode words better being more likely to access text reading accurately – but their language comprehension (spoken language) is the other vital ingredient.

The NFER phonics reports make it clear that many teachers still use multi-cueing reading strategies in their practice – and that suggests they are unaware of how research shows us these can be damaging for children’s reading habits as a reliance on guessing words from various cues is not helpful for long-term reading. Again this is a matter of professional understanding (or lack thereof).

Nick Gibb is entirely correct to continue pursuing an emphasis on quality phonics provision and this pursuance is based on both research and leading-edge phonics practices in our schools.
Post Reply