More news of the battle of different teaching methods:
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:24 pm
http://www.donpotter.net/PDF/Mary%20Joh ... 20Test.pdf
I read this (flagged up on the UK Reading Reform Foundation message forum at www.rrf.org.uk ) - and had to wonder just how many individuals and groups have to keep fighting on and on to bring high-quality, synthetic phonics teaching to the fore. Yet again, note the dates. To this day, my understanding is that synthetic phonics teaching is far from guaranteed in Canada.
Consider that, even now, we are still battling for systematic, synthetic phonics teaching in England itself. Despite the UK government investigating the teaching of reading and subsequently introducing guidance of the synthetic phonics teaching principles for infants in mainstream, nevertheless some of the people with the highest authority in the UK (Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Education Secretary Ed Balls) continue to promote and to fund with taxpayers' money their favoured Reading Recovery programme for 'intervention' purposes.
In effect, the strongest pupils at learning to read should receive synthetic phonics teaching, but the weakest pupils (the ones most in need of synthetic phonics teaching) receive an intensive daily dose of the mixed methods Reading Recovery programme which is the opposite approach to synthetic phonics. The approaches are not compatible.
So, the battle goes on and on - will it always?
Meanwhile, however, the Science and Technology Select Committee in the UK are now questioning the efficacy and lack of objective evidence for the UK government's promotion of Reading Recovery. Hearings are to take place next week with reference to the evidence base for the government's promotion of Reading Recovery.
I hope to attend one of the hearings and will report back. Whilst our Rose Report (2006) is truly historic, what will the outcome be of this forthcoming inquiry into the government's continued mixed messages to its teaching profession?
We await with baited breath.
I read this (flagged up on the UK Reading Reform Foundation message forum at www.rrf.org.uk ) - and had to wonder just how many individuals and groups have to keep fighting on and on to bring high-quality, synthetic phonics teaching to the fore. Yet again, note the dates. To this day, my understanding is that synthetic phonics teaching is far from guaranteed in Canada.
Consider that, even now, we are still battling for systematic, synthetic phonics teaching in England itself. Despite the UK government investigating the teaching of reading and subsequently introducing guidance of the synthetic phonics teaching principles for infants in mainstream, nevertheless some of the people with the highest authority in the UK (Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Education Secretary Ed Balls) continue to promote and to fund with taxpayers' money their favoured Reading Recovery programme for 'intervention' purposes.
In effect, the strongest pupils at learning to read should receive synthetic phonics teaching, but the weakest pupils (the ones most in need of synthetic phonics teaching) receive an intensive daily dose of the mixed methods Reading Recovery programme which is the opposite approach to synthetic phonics. The approaches are not compatible.
So, the battle goes on and on - will it always?
Meanwhile, however, the Science and Technology Select Committee in the UK are now questioning the efficacy and lack of objective evidence for the UK government's promotion of Reading Recovery. Hearings are to take place next week with reference to the evidence base for the government's promotion of Reading Recovery.
I hope to attend one of the hearings and will report back. Whilst our Rose Report (2006) is truly historic, what will the outcome be of this forthcoming inquiry into the government's continued mixed messages to its teaching profession?
We await with baited breath.