Have you read “The Balancing Act: An Evidence-Based Approach to Teaching Phonics, Reading and Writing” by Wyse and Hacking? If so I’d be keen to have your thoughts on it.
I don't doubt phonics works in helping children learn to read. I don't have any objection to phonics being part of early years education. But the fact that children taught exclusively this way CAN read doesn't mean that they WILL read ( leaving aside the problem that English can't always be decided phonetically. Phonics may get children over the hump of beginning to decode words, but it is the love of reading which will really grab their hearts and keep them reading until they are reading Dickens and Shakespeare. Technically speaking, I can (or could once) do differential calculus, which we had to learn for O level many years ago, but any idea that Maths could be interesting or beautiful was so thoroughly killed off by the soulless (and fear-inducing) way it was taught, that I have never willingly gone anywhere near anything mathematical since. Phonics may be a useful tool, but it isn't the whole answer.
But if you struggle to read, you will never enjoy reading. And a strong grounding in basic reading is also very helpful in early maths - if you struggle to read you will have trouble understanding the maths question - potentially being defeated even before the arithmetic kicks in. There is substantial research to back this up.
Of course phonics has to be supplemented by identifying words that don’t follow the basic rules, but it’s much easier to teach the phonics, then supplement with the exceptions, than to teach every word as though it was an exception.
They introduced "Cueing" , then called "Look and guess" (I kid you not) in my primary school in South Wales in the mid 1970s. The results were, of course, a disaster.
There was a meeting called in the school and the local union leader of the local coal pit said at the meeting "Either you go back to traditional methods which we all know work, or we'll take it up the line through the Labour party and the council and there will be changes in the staff at this school".
Like it or not the unions had their uses. "Look and guess" was scrapped.
None of that should be surprising. Males have a far greater range of IQ - More geniuses and more low IQ individuals - than females. Left-handers also tend to have more neurological problems than right handers and, on average, slightly lower IQ. The birth date shouldn't make much difference by the time you get to 16-18 so I've no idea what is happening there.
It's case of marginal debits that compound over time. If you're left-handed (with the array of neurological issues that may arise from that) and come from a single-parent family (with the various issues that may arise from that too) and you're male, in an education environment that almost exclusively female in the early years, and that values female behavioural traits across the age range, there's a not insignificant statistical chance you're playing catchy-up from the first day at school. If, on top of that, you're barely four years old in a class with students who are almost five, you're considerably less developed. That's not to say you are doomed. What it is to say is that the compound interest of those tiny debits things can mount up over time. Hence my observation above.
I've always said there should be two "years" in a school year, one starting September one in Jan. Most primary schools have several classes per year, every secondary school does.We'd then have exams in June/ October. University could choose to have Two intakes a year or be sensible and have one, in Jan.
There are numerous non-teaching tweaks we could make that would improve education. Sadly, the people in charge are ideologically wedded to the current, failing, system.
Have you read “The Balancing Act: An Evidence-Based Approach to Teaching Phonics, Reading and Writing” by Wyse and Hacking? If so I’d be keen to have your thoughts on it.
I don't doubt phonics works in helping children learn to read. I don't have any objection to phonics being part of early years education. But the fact that children taught exclusively this way CAN read doesn't mean that they WILL read ( leaving aside the problem that English can't always be decided phonetically. Phonics may get children over the hump of beginning to decode words, but it is the love of reading which will really grab their hearts and keep them reading until they are reading Dickens and Shakespeare. Technically speaking, I can (or could once) do differential calculus, which we had to learn for O level many years ago, but any idea that Maths could be interesting or beautiful was so thoroughly killed off by the soulless (and fear-inducing) way it was taught, that I have never willingly gone anywhere near anything mathematical since. Phonics may be a useful tool, but it isn't the whole answer.
But if you struggle to read, you will never enjoy reading. And a strong grounding in basic reading is also very helpful in early maths - if you struggle to read you will have trouble understanding the maths question - potentially being defeated even before the arithmetic kicks in. There is substantial research to back this up.
Of course phonics has to be supplemented by identifying words that don’t follow the basic rules, but it’s much easier to teach the phonics, then supplement with the exceptions, than to teach every word as though it was an exception.
They introduced "Cueing" , then called "Look and guess" (I kid you not) in my primary school in South Wales in the mid 1970s. The results were, of course, a disaster.
There was a meeting called in the school and the local union leader of the local coal pit said at the meeting "Either you go back to traditional methods which we all know work, or we'll take it up the line through the Labour party and the council and there will be changes in the staff at this school".
Like it or not the unions had their uses. "Look and guess" was scrapped.
I worked a lot with bottom set students at KS3-4 and I noticed the following trends. Of a class of 12 students:
- 10 would have their birthdays from April onwards, and of those, 5-6 would be June, July,
August birthdays, so among the youngest students in the year.
- At least 30-40% of the class would be left-handed. (Left handedness skews to top and bottom
sets, very few in middle sets).
- Most of the children came from single parent families.
- 9-10 of them would be male.
Marginal debits that compound all the way through school.
None of that should be surprising. Males have a far greater range of IQ - More geniuses and more low IQ individuals - than females. Left-handers also tend to have more neurological problems than right handers and, on average, slightly lower IQ. The birth date shouldn't make much difference by the time you get to 16-18 so I've no idea what is happening there.
It's case of marginal debits that compound over time. If you're left-handed (with the array of neurological issues that may arise from that) and come from a single-parent family (with the various issues that may arise from that too) and you're male, in an education environment that almost exclusively female in the early years, and that values female behavioural traits across the age range, there's a not insignificant statistical chance you're playing catchy-up from the first day at school. If, on top of that, you're barely four years old in a class with students who are almost five, you're considerably less developed. That's not to say you are doomed. What it is to say is that the compound interest of those tiny debits things can mount up over time. Hence my observation above.
I've always said there should be two "years" in a school year, one starting September one in Jan. Most primary schools have several classes per year, every secondary school does.We'd then have exams in June/ October. University could choose to have Two intakes a year or be sensible and have one, in Jan.
There are numerous non-teaching tweaks we could make that would improve education. Sadly, the people in charge are ideologically wedded to the current, failing, system.
Very interesting
I worked a lot with bottom set students at KS3-4 and I noticed the following trends. Of a class of 12 students:
- 10 would have their birthdays from April onwards, and of those, 5-6 would be June, July,
August birthdays, so among the youngest students in the year.
- At least 30-40% of the class would be left-handed. (Left handedness skews to top and bottom
sets, very few in middle sets).
- Most of the children came from single parent families.
- 9-10 of them would be male.
Marginal debits that compound all the way through school.