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?
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Be strong and independent!
I have cut and pasted my comments below from a recent entry I made on the TES (Times Educational Supplement) online staffroom forum (early years) in response to a new teacher who feels she must use the 'Lighthouse' reading books in her school. The books were purchased only a couple of years ago and the school's literacy co-ordinator wants her to use them. The new teacher realises that these books are not helpful to support synthetic phonics teaching but feels that she must use her school's resources. New in service, she does not feel in a position to do anything about this situation. At best, she may now resort to writing her own text-level material to give the children. I wrote:
"There are children who fare well on a 'global shape' sight vocabulary at first. But this is a very limited, short-sighted approach to teaching reading - and can potentially damage the children's automatic 'reading reflex'.It is perfectly possible for early years and infant teachers to be totally unaware as to the damage they create in terms of longer-term reading potential.
I have a very interesting, but chilling, book written by optometrist Byron Harrison and his colleague Jean Clyde from Tasmania. Byron tested thousands of children brought to him to check their eyesight and began to wonder what was going on. He recorded the percentage of inaccurate word-guessing from children of various ages and reading abilities.
Their discovery was based around the notion of 'VAS' - Visual Attention Span. There is a limit to the number of letter shapes children can recall for visual 'global' word recognition and this varies from child to child. In other words, you can be expecting the children to achieve something that they are just not capable of achieving. He also noted that whole word reading amounts to noting the ascenders and descenders and the 'word shape' but that this is an extremely inaccurate way of recognising words as so many words have very similar shapes - particularly the shorter ones. Therefore, children are often less accurate with words which are supposed to be simpler words.
Well, the percentage of errors from reading words as global shapes is horrendously high - regardless of ability - the problem is on a massive scale. That is why I describe the book as 'chilling'.Of course some children can remember words as global shapes - no-one said that they can't. But some children can't. And some children are damaged from fufilling their potential by this early approach when children's brains are extremely sponge-like.
The 'range of reading strategies' also dilutes and damages phonics teaching - not only from the child's perspective - but from the teacher's perspective. Whilesoever the teacher believes a 'range of strategies' is the way to go - or has to resort to telling children to guess in order to 'get through' the 'Lighthouse' type of books, then the teacher's teaching of good phonics is also diluted and damaged. This is a viscious circle.
Not only that, the parents have to resort to telling the children to guess because the wrong type of reading book has been sent home. It goes on and on.
Do people think it was a 'small' thing to turn around previous government guidance? It certainly was not. And the battle continues precisely because people don't like to think they get any teaching methods 'wrong' or that we are entitled to our beliefs and opinions.
I think there are times when we are very much entitled to our beliefs and opinions - but in many ways, the teaching of reading is not one of those occasions. There are TOO MANY clear signs from all sorts of quarters which show there is something hugely significant about the synthetic phonics teaching principles. Teacher after teacher after teacher describe the improvement to their teaching effectiveness from a change to synthetic phonics - and a dramatic improvement at that.
The government (or some branches of the government) has worked hard to change the previous searchlights reading strategies advice. The battle goes on to persuade the university lecturers that this is important and subversion is everywhere - but I bet those people who subvert have never tried to teach by the synthetic phonics teaching principles - or they would not be subverters.
I am suggesting to everyone that we all should have a higher professionalism and integrity than the people in education and politics with some kind of authority over us. We do need a revolution and that is the revolution of not being sheep - of not being compliant.
I am not asking people to pay regard to the Rose Report because it comes from the goverment - far from it - the government continues to promote Reading Recovery which is the opposite to the Rose Report. How daft and unaccountable is that!
I am asking people to pay regard to the Rose Report because the Rose Report is historic in its implications. It is enormous. Teachers need to understand the symbolism of the u-turn in guidance based on very clear evidence from a number of sources.
A literacy coordinator here and there, and a stubborn head - or an unconvinced local authority adviser, or a wayward politician like Gordon Brown who promotes Reading Recovery and Ed Balls who defends this ludicrous contradiction - they mean nothing.
What counts is knowing your business. What counts is what is best for those very vulnerable children in our care. What you do now with them, standing up and being counted, getting to know about teaching methods and how to know if you are doing the BEST teaching - that is what counts. Nothing else. No-one else.
Surely your professional integrity is paramount.
Forget the Lighthouse books. Reject them. Throw them in the bin or put them on a shelf to grow hairs. Never mind their cost. What cost to the children if you put even a single one onto the track of bad habits and wrong reading reflex?
The Lighthouse programme was brought out in the Early Literacy Support days. ELS was created on the back of Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery is dire. If you are new in service, draw enormous strength from an oldie like me who does not give two figs for all these authority figures and authorative regimes.
Be strong, do the right thing.
Be independent."
"There are children who fare well on a 'global shape' sight vocabulary at first. But this is a very limited, short-sighted approach to teaching reading - and can potentially damage the children's automatic 'reading reflex'.It is perfectly possible for early years and infant teachers to be totally unaware as to the damage they create in terms of longer-term reading potential.
I have a very interesting, but chilling, book written by optometrist Byron Harrison and his colleague Jean Clyde from Tasmania. Byron tested thousands of children brought to him to check their eyesight and began to wonder what was going on. He recorded the percentage of inaccurate word-guessing from children of various ages and reading abilities.
Their discovery was based around the notion of 'VAS' - Visual Attention Span. There is a limit to the number of letter shapes children can recall for visual 'global' word recognition and this varies from child to child. In other words, you can be expecting the children to achieve something that they are just not capable of achieving. He also noted that whole word reading amounts to noting the ascenders and descenders and the 'word shape' but that this is an extremely inaccurate way of recognising words as so many words have very similar shapes - particularly the shorter ones. Therefore, children are often less accurate with words which are supposed to be simpler words.
Well, the percentage of errors from reading words as global shapes is horrendously high - regardless of ability - the problem is on a massive scale. That is why I describe the book as 'chilling'.Of course some children can remember words as global shapes - no-one said that they can't. But some children can't. And some children are damaged from fufilling their potential by this early approach when children's brains are extremely sponge-like.
The 'range of reading strategies' also dilutes and damages phonics teaching - not only from the child's perspective - but from the teacher's perspective. Whilesoever the teacher believes a 'range of strategies' is the way to go - or has to resort to telling children to guess in order to 'get through' the 'Lighthouse' type of books, then the teacher's teaching of good phonics is also diluted and damaged. This is a viscious circle.
Not only that, the parents have to resort to telling the children to guess because the wrong type of reading book has been sent home. It goes on and on.
Do people think it was a 'small' thing to turn around previous government guidance? It certainly was not. And the battle continues precisely because people don't like to think they get any teaching methods 'wrong' or that we are entitled to our beliefs and opinions.
I think there are times when we are very much entitled to our beliefs and opinions - but in many ways, the teaching of reading is not one of those occasions. There are TOO MANY clear signs from all sorts of quarters which show there is something hugely significant about the synthetic phonics teaching principles. Teacher after teacher after teacher describe the improvement to their teaching effectiveness from a change to synthetic phonics - and a dramatic improvement at that.
The government (or some branches of the government) has worked hard to change the previous searchlights reading strategies advice. The battle goes on to persuade the university lecturers that this is important and subversion is everywhere - but I bet those people who subvert have never tried to teach by the synthetic phonics teaching principles - or they would not be subverters.
I am suggesting to everyone that we all should have a higher professionalism and integrity than the people in education and politics with some kind of authority over us. We do need a revolution and that is the revolution of not being sheep - of not being compliant.
I am not asking people to pay regard to the Rose Report because it comes from the goverment - far from it - the government continues to promote Reading Recovery which is the opposite to the Rose Report. How daft and unaccountable is that!
I am asking people to pay regard to the Rose Report because the Rose Report is historic in its implications. It is enormous. Teachers need to understand the symbolism of the u-turn in guidance based on very clear evidence from a number of sources.
A literacy coordinator here and there, and a stubborn head - or an unconvinced local authority adviser, or a wayward politician like Gordon Brown who promotes Reading Recovery and Ed Balls who defends this ludicrous contradiction - they mean nothing.
What counts is knowing your business. What counts is what is best for those very vulnerable children in our care. What you do now with them, standing up and being counted, getting to know about teaching methods and how to know if you are doing the BEST teaching - that is what counts. Nothing else. No-one else.
Surely your professional integrity is paramount.
Forget the Lighthouse books. Reject them. Throw them in the bin or put them on a shelf to grow hairs. Never mind their cost. What cost to the children if you put even a single one onto the track of bad habits and wrong reading reflex?
The Lighthouse programme was brought out in the Early Literacy Support days. ELS was created on the back of Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery is dire. If you are new in service, draw enormous strength from an oldie like me who does not give two figs for all these authority figures and authorative regimes.
Be strong, do the right thing.
Be independent."
Thursday, 21 June 2007
Upwards Evaluation
Whenever I mention the Rose Report, I use the word 'historic' because this is the case.
But what does the future really have in store for us in education and politics - what will the history books show in years to come?
Will the Rose Report and the launch of the government's synthetic phonics programme 'Letters and Sounds' create the level of immediate impact on standards which the synthetic phonics proponents know is possible?
Whilst I have been debating at national level for several years, I have also been beavering away teaching real children across the primary age range in my local authority with great success. The kind of resistance and non-response from my local authority advisers that I have encountered, however, is really quite shocking.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE in every local authority but we are well aware of resistance and subversion from various educational groups and individuals as we study the national scene.
But what a strange, dreadful, twist of irony, of fate, that just as we have achieved the historic Rose Report, many in authority - at government level and at local level - continue to heavily promote intervention programmes with the discredited 'searchlights reading strategies' firmly embedded.
Our country's children, and adults, who are struggling the most with their basic literacy knowledge and skills continue to get the very reading strategies that have in mainstream education now been firmly and officially rejected.
This should be of huge concern to anyone seriously interested in raising national levels of literacy and it ought to be a huge embarrassment for the government.
If we are not careful, this very special historic moment will be a lost opportunity as influential people continue to perpetuate the myth that some children need 'something different'.
Rose makes the essentials of teaching reading and spelling very clear indeed. Learning the alphabetic code knowledge and the skills of blending for reading and segmenting for spelling are needed by everyone WHATEVER their individualism or difficulties. It's as simple as that. I am incredulous that anyone could think otherwise.
What can we do?
We need, and should have, an immediate POSITION STATEMENT from this government. Either those in authority truly understand the simplicity and necessity of teaching the alphabetic code knowledge and skills to everyone - or they don't.
Here is the essential question which I shall continue to shout out loud and clear over and again until progress is universal and we have true justice for all those being taught to read:
"Are those in authority saying that the strongest schools and the pupils with the strongest literacy skills should be subject to synthetic phonics teaching whilst the weakest schools and the pupils with the weakest literacy skills should receive the multi-cueing reading strategies which the Rose Report rejects?"
The fundamental question is really that simple.
I truly hope that those of you who visit my website and understand this issue will ask the question above of their schools, their special needs teachers, their local authorities and their politicians.
We need their position statements.
At the very least, if the promotion of highly flawed intervention programmes is to continue, then the parents should be given information about these programmes and allowed to make the following choice:
"Do you wish your son/daughter to receive intervention in the form of synthetic phonics teaching (to learn alphabetic code knowledge and the blending and segmenting skills and to be provided with books which match his/her code knowledge and skills)...
...or do you wish your son/daughter to receive multi-cueing mixed methods whereby strategies of guessing words from picture cues, context and initial letters are taught using books which are beyond his/her code knowledge and skills?"
What would you want for your children?
Meanwhile, in my local authority I have asked precisely that question to endeavour to hold the advisers to account for replacing my highly successful (and measured) synthetic phonics intervention for 10 primary children with the Oxford Brookes University 'Catch Up' multi-cueing programme (see RRF newsletter no. 60 http://www.rrf.org.uk/newsletter.php?n_ID=184 ). This is the final paragraph of a letter I received today from Margaret Goldie, Corporate Director (Children and Young People) for West Berkshire:
"...I am writing to say that as far as the Council is concerned this matter is now closed, and I have asked officers not to participate in any further discussion with you on this subject."
Further discussion? I have been waiting for the past eight years for a proper discussion with my local authority advisers.
My next steps are to ask for POSITION STATEMENTS from both the government and from my local MP, Richard Benyon. My local council is a Conservative council and synthetic phonics is SUPPOSED TO BE the flagship policy of the Conservatives.
Can you see how this issue of 'accountability' presents as a one-way street? I am doing my best to perpetuate the notion of 'upwards accountability' because I am tired of, and unimpressed with, the downwards pressure and policing from the government, Ofsted and local authority inspectors. I see greater competency and understanding from people at the chalk face and from parents than I often observe in people with so-called 'authority'.
How many other authorities purport to be in line with the Rose recommendations whilst still sending their teachers and teaching assistants for training in the Reading Recovery and Catch Up type programmes? Do the advisers even understand the contradiction? Do they care?
Parents of school children should be alerted to this and I hope they will be courageous and pro-active enough to press home this issue for the sake of their children.
But what does the future really have in store for us in education and politics - what will the history books show in years to come?
Will the Rose Report and the launch of the government's synthetic phonics programme 'Letters and Sounds' create the level of immediate impact on standards which the synthetic phonics proponents know is possible?
Whilst I have been debating at national level for several years, I have also been beavering away teaching real children across the primary age range in my local authority with great success. The kind of resistance and non-response from my local authority advisers that I have encountered, however, is really quite shocking.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE in every local authority but we are well aware of resistance and subversion from various educational groups and individuals as we study the national scene.
But what a strange, dreadful, twist of irony, of fate, that just as we have achieved the historic Rose Report, many in authority - at government level and at local level - continue to heavily promote intervention programmes with the discredited 'searchlights reading strategies' firmly embedded.
Our country's children, and adults, who are struggling the most with their basic literacy knowledge and skills continue to get the very reading strategies that have in mainstream education now been firmly and officially rejected.
This should be of huge concern to anyone seriously interested in raising national levels of literacy and it ought to be a huge embarrassment for the government.
If we are not careful, this very special historic moment will be a lost opportunity as influential people continue to perpetuate the myth that some children need 'something different'.
Rose makes the essentials of teaching reading and spelling very clear indeed. Learning the alphabetic code knowledge and the skills of blending for reading and segmenting for spelling are needed by everyone WHATEVER their individualism or difficulties. It's as simple as that. I am incredulous that anyone could think otherwise.
What can we do?
We need, and should have, an immediate POSITION STATEMENT from this government. Either those in authority truly understand the simplicity and necessity of teaching the alphabetic code knowledge and skills to everyone - or they don't.
Here is the essential question which I shall continue to shout out loud and clear over and again until progress is universal and we have true justice for all those being taught to read:
"Are those in authority saying that the strongest schools and the pupils with the strongest literacy skills should be subject to synthetic phonics teaching whilst the weakest schools and the pupils with the weakest literacy skills should receive the multi-cueing reading strategies which the Rose Report rejects?"
The fundamental question is really that simple.
I truly hope that those of you who visit my website and understand this issue will ask the question above of their schools, their special needs teachers, their local authorities and their politicians.
We need their position statements.
At the very least, if the promotion of highly flawed intervention programmes is to continue, then the parents should be given information about these programmes and allowed to make the following choice:
"Do you wish your son/daughter to receive intervention in the form of synthetic phonics teaching (to learn alphabetic code knowledge and the blending and segmenting skills and to be provided with books which match his/her code knowledge and skills)...
...or do you wish your son/daughter to receive multi-cueing mixed methods whereby strategies of guessing words from picture cues, context and initial letters are taught using books which are beyond his/her code knowledge and skills?"
What would you want for your children?
Meanwhile, in my local authority I have asked precisely that question to endeavour to hold the advisers to account for replacing my highly successful (and measured) synthetic phonics intervention for 10 primary children with the Oxford Brookes University 'Catch Up' multi-cueing programme (see RRF newsletter no. 60 http://www.rrf.org.uk/newsletter.php?n_ID=184 ). This is the final paragraph of a letter I received today from Margaret Goldie, Corporate Director (Children and Young People) for West Berkshire:
"...I am writing to say that as far as the Council is concerned this matter is now closed, and I have asked officers not to participate in any further discussion with you on this subject."
Further discussion? I have been waiting for the past eight years for a proper discussion with my local authority advisers.
My next steps are to ask for POSITION STATEMENTS from both the government and from my local MP, Richard Benyon. My local council is a Conservative council and synthetic phonics is SUPPOSED TO BE the flagship policy of the Conservatives.
Can you see how this issue of 'accountability' presents as a one-way street? I am doing my best to perpetuate the notion of 'upwards accountability' because I am tired of, and unimpressed with, the downwards pressure and policing from the government, Ofsted and local authority inspectors. I see greater competency and understanding from people at the chalk face and from parents than I often observe in people with so-called 'authority'.
How many other authorities purport to be in line with the Rose recommendations whilst still sending their teachers and teaching assistants for training in the Reading Recovery and Catch Up type programmes? Do the advisers even understand the contradiction? Do they care?
Parents of school children should be alerted to this and I hope they will be courageous and pro-active enough to press home this issue for the sake of their children.
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
It's official! The government launches its synthetic phonics programme - Letters and Sounds!
Yesterday, synthetic phonics hit the headlines in the UK. It was the official roll-out of the British government's own guidance - a 200+ page book giving minute-by-minute advice and teaching content. 'Letters and Sounds' is written based on proven effective synthetic phonics teaching programmes and in acknowledgement of the research on reading to date. The accompanying DVD shows snapshot-teaching in a range of schools using well-known commercial programmes. This gives a clear endorsement of the use of commerical phonics programmes with the proviso that they meet Jim Rose's criteria for evaluating a systematic phonics programme as adopted by the government.
The government guidance, however, is guidance with a difference. Although there is sufficient detail in the form of lesson plans, word lists and phonics charts to enable any teacher to teach using the synthetic phonics teaching principles, the 'programme' is otherwise devoid of practical teaching resources.
It has been made perfectly clear that teachers are at liberty to continue with their own successful practice using commercial or in-house synthetic phonics programmes and they are not expected to follow the government guidance specifically. Indeed, the lack of practical teaching resources in the goverment programme is a deliberate and clear message not to feel obliged to follow the government details per se.
With the provision of five copies of 'Letters and Sounds' for all primary schools, there can be no doubt of the seriousness of the government's intent to establish synthetic phonics teaching in the early years and key stage 1.
To have achieved the Rose Final Report and the roll-out of a government synthetic phonics programme is truly historic but there is still some way to go before everyone can benefit from this turn of events.
Firstly, the government programme is aimed specifically at the 'foundation stage' and 'key stage one' (4 to 7 year olds). What about all those children, students and adults who have never received rigorous synthetic phonics teaching and who would benefit greatly from a boost of alphabetic code knowledge and the basic skills of blending for reading, segmenting for spelling and even handwriting? Well - the battle for 'intervention' is not yet over as some branches of the government and some local authorities continue to promote well-established intervention programmes based on the 'multi-cueing' reading strategies which the Rose Report rejects and which I, and others, describe as nothing more than 'guessing the words'.
Secondly, how are people to discern which commercial programmes and resources will be the most helpful to them in both the early years and for intervention when, without doubt, anything leaving the publishers will claim vociferously to be 'in line with the Rose Report'?
One solution is for people to refrain from rushing into buying the glossiest programmes with the glossiest advertising. Potential purchasers need to do their homework to make sure they understand the synthetic phonics teaching principles and to consider what it is they really need to help them teach the code knowledge and skills effectively. I have gone some way to describe the nature of synthetic phonics teaching through information on my website and through the provision of various helpful documents such as the criteria for evaluation, an overview of the alphabetic code (Debbie's scroll), a teaching model and assessments. There is also a discussion forum (message board) which is now well-established with a good bank of both anecdotal evidence and advice.
I am currently focusing on providing all the practical resources anyone would need to teach the alphabetic code and three skills from the begining of introducing a simple code through to the complex code - for any age! After all, it is the same alphabetic code and skills which people need to learn whatever their age!
My online programme is being written entirely by me and it is neither 'glossy' nor 'pink and fluffy'. The programme essentially provides all the practical resources such as charts, assessments, flash cards, activity sheets, word lists, visual aids, handwriting material and reading material that you need to teach reading and spelling effectively. It is largely based on my 'teaching model' and my 'overview scroll' and all the advice I have offered people over many years. Then it is the users' responsibility to deliver the programme according to their individual circumstances!
Funnily enough, my online programme does not include a 200+pages manual but instead it will provide you with all the necessary resources notably lacking from 'Letters and Sounds' - and the guidance is threaded throughout all the materials so that you can teach and learn, learn and teach, all at the same time!
Debbie
The government guidance, however, is guidance with a difference. Although there is sufficient detail in the form of lesson plans, word lists and phonics charts to enable any teacher to teach using the synthetic phonics teaching principles, the 'programme' is otherwise devoid of practical teaching resources.
It has been made perfectly clear that teachers are at liberty to continue with their own successful practice using commercial or in-house synthetic phonics programmes and they are not expected to follow the government guidance specifically. Indeed, the lack of practical teaching resources in the goverment programme is a deliberate and clear message not to feel obliged to follow the government details per se.
With the provision of five copies of 'Letters and Sounds' for all primary schools, there can be no doubt of the seriousness of the government's intent to establish synthetic phonics teaching in the early years and key stage 1.
To have achieved the Rose Final Report and the roll-out of a government synthetic phonics programme is truly historic but there is still some way to go before everyone can benefit from this turn of events.
Firstly, the government programme is aimed specifically at the 'foundation stage' and 'key stage one' (4 to 7 year olds). What about all those children, students and adults who have never received rigorous synthetic phonics teaching and who would benefit greatly from a boost of alphabetic code knowledge and the basic skills of blending for reading, segmenting for spelling and even handwriting? Well - the battle for 'intervention' is not yet over as some branches of the government and some local authorities continue to promote well-established intervention programmes based on the 'multi-cueing' reading strategies which the Rose Report rejects and which I, and others, describe as nothing more than 'guessing the words'.
Secondly, how are people to discern which commercial programmes and resources will be the most helpful to them in both the early years and for intervention when, without doubt, anything leaving the publishers will claim vociferously to be 'in line with the Rose Report'?
One solution is for people to refrain from rushing into buying the glossiest programmes with the glossiest advertising. Potential purchasers need to do their homework to make sure they understand the synthetic phonics teaching principles and to consider what it is they really need to help them teach the code knowledge and skills effectively. I have gone some way to describe the nature of synthetic phonics teaching through information on my website and through the provision of various helpful documents such as the criteria for evaluation, an overview of the alphabetic code (Debbie's scroll), a teaching model and assessments. There is also a discussion forum (message board) which is now well-established with a good bank of both anecdotal evidence and advice.
I am currently focusing on providing all the practical resources anyone would need to teach the alphabetic code and three skills from the begining of introducing a simple code through to the complex code - for any age! After all, it is the same alphabetic code and skills which people need to learn whatever their age!
My online programme is being written entirely by me and it is neither 'glossy' nor 'pink and fluffy'. The programme essentially provides all the practical resources such as charts, assessments, flash cards, activity sheets, word lists, visual aids, handwriting material and reading material that you need to teach reading and spelling effectively. It is largely based on my 'teaching model' and my 'overview scroll' and all the advice I have offered people over many years. Then it is the users' responsibility to deliver the programme according to their individual circumstances!
Funnily enough, my online programme does not include a 200+pages manual but instead it will provide you with all the necessary resources notably lacking from 'Letters and Sounds' - and the guidance is threaded throughout all the materials so that you can teach and learn, learn and teach, all at the same time!
Debbie
Friday, 15 June 2007
Online Synthetic Phonics Programme
I am very excited to announce that my International Online Synthetic Phonics Teaching Programme will be launched this coming September in time for the start of the Autumn School Term 2007. The programme is fully in line with the recommendations of the UK Rose Report (March 2006).
Available online via subscription, it is a complete self-contained package suitable for schools, individual teachers, home tutors, student-teachers and parents.
Split into 12 main units, the programme is designed to be delivered with a step-by-step approach to teach the simple and complex alphabetic codes. Instructions are explicit, but simple, every step of the way. The programme includes cumulative decodable words, sentences and text, and charts for visual aids, planning, record keeping and assessment. Pencil control and observational skills are developed through handwriting and drawing activities, along with vocabulary enrichment and speaking and listening. There will also be online video clips with practical demonstrations and explanations, audio sound clips demonstrating the 44+ sounds of the English language corresponding with their spelling variations and, of course, a discussion forum!
The price of the programme, which includes telephone and online support, has not yet been finalised but is expected to be in the region of £10 - £15 per unit/month for individual users - schools will be able to purchase a multi-user licence.
Learning to read and write is truly a gift for life but in order to learn well, one needs to be taught well. My vision has always been to enable anyone across the world to teach and learn the complicated English alphabetic reading and writing code - and to teach and learn it well! I want to put a programme 'on the world map' so that anyone - parent or teacher - is completely supported to teach their children, pupils or students to read and write the English language. My programme is totally comprehensive, but will also be an invaluable asset to complement or fill-in-the-gaps of other phonics programmes.
Register your interest in the programme by visiting my website at: www.SyntheticPhonics.com/contact.html and leave your details on the 'Contact Us' form. As soon as the programme is officially launched you will receive an email alert advising you of the address of the sign-up website.
Thank you to all those people who have taken advantage of this facility to notify me of their interest. I have been quite amazed as already I have received many emails from across the world in a very short time! For me, writing this programme is such a big development following all my years teaching, training, advising and studying. I sincerely hope that my simple and practical ideas and material will prove to be just what people need to support them in the aim of cracking the complexities of the English alphabetic code!
I'll keep you fully updated on this blog as the programme nears completion.
Debbie
Available online via subscription, it is a complete self-contained package suitable for schools, individual teachers, home tutors, student-teachers and parents.
Split into 12 main units, the programme is designed to be delivered with a step-by-step approach to teach the simple and complex alphabetic codes. Instructions are explicit, but simple, every step of the way. The programme includes cumulative decodable words, sentences and text, and charts for visual aids, planning, record keeping and assessment. Pencil control and observational skills are developed through handwriting and drawing activities, along with vocabulary enrichment and speaking and listening. There will also be online video clips with practical demonstrations and explanations, audio sound clips demonstrating the 44+ sounds of the English language corresponding with their spelling variations and, of course, a discussion forum!
The price of the programme, which includes telephone and online support, has not yet been finalised but is expected to be in the region of £10 - £15 per unit/month for individual users - schools will be able to purchase a multi-user licence.
Learning to read and write is truly a gift for life but in order to learn well, one needs to be taught well. My vision has always been to enable anyone across the world to teach and learn the complicated English alphabetic reading and writing code - and to teach and learn it well! I want to put a programme 'on the world map' so that anyone - parent or teacher - is completely supported to teach their children, pupils or students to read and write the English language. My programme is totally comprehensive, but will also be an invaluable asset to complement or fill-in-the-gaps of other phonics programmes.
Register your interest in the programme by visiting my website at: www.SyntheticPhonics.com/contact.html and leave your details on the 'Contact Us' form. As soon as the programme is officially launched you will receive an email alert advising you of the address of the sign-up website.
Thank you to all those people who have taken advantage of this facility to notify me of their interest. I have been quite amazed as already I have received many emails from across the world in a very short time! For me, writing this programme is such a big development following all my years teaching, training, advising and studying. I sincerely hope that my simple and practical ideas and material will prove to be just what people need to support them in the aim of cracking the complexities of the English alphabetic code!
I'll keep you fully updated on this blog as the programme nears completion.
Debbie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
