window of opportunity sound symbol correspondence

Well, he is right in terms of the language sensitive period, though I think the research isn’t so hard and fast on just how long it is. But inevidably the older you are the harder it is to learn language. But this is verbal language. I’m not sure the whole thing works out just so tightly for written language. There is no place in the brain that it the “reading center” of the brain. In some cases, kids will start learning to read, without any special intervention at about age 12. I have heard this is rather common (used to be called, I think, “developmental dyslexia”). I personally know of two such kids and read of a few others— not recommending it or anything.

In Scandanavia (I think) or is it the Netherlands, they feel that early reading instruction actually increases reading problems and it is against the law to teach reading before age 7. In that case, they would be too old too mess with. I’m not sure I agree, but think they would not come up with this without reason (I do feel we rush kids into reading starting in kindergarten).

Several of the Orton based systems, including Wilson and Barton were started by people with background with adult dyslexics— actually adult literacy. In some cases they do better as they have motivation that is internal. I’ve found that it is NOT easier to work with little kids (except that they don’t have the patterns of failure that older kids do). I would rather get them young to have them avoid going thru the failure that might have been prevented, but I don’t believe this psychologist. And I have enough limited experience to feel it is full of holes.

—des

Absolutely ridiculous. Total tripe. Fifty and more years out of date. Not based on any science. Not based on any experiemntal trials. Trash pseudoscience.
I hope you catch my subtle hints here.

As des says, there is NO “reading center” in the brain; it does NOT compare to the language learning center which does exist. Language is natural to humans and has been around as long as we have been humans. reading is a social construct, has to be deliberately taught, and is certainly not universal (check world illiteracy rates).

This kind of “the’ll never learn so don’t waste your time teaching them” theory comes back frequently in many fields; it saves face, avoids work, and lets people wash their hands of any guilt for not teaching. Just becasue it’s popular doesn’t mean it’s true.

In Scandinavia, as des points out (Sweden, Norway, Finland, and possibly Denmark), teaching of reading does not *start* until age 7. And these are the *most highly literate* countries in the world. In a recent international study, Finland scored at or near the top overall. Other national rankings show that they are *two years ahead* of American high school students.
Hmmm, start a year or two later, end up two years ahead — maybe they know something we don’t, do you think? And yes, they *only* teach through a phonics-based method, would laugh at anything else. And it blows the “after seven give up” theory out of the water.

I work all the time tutoring students aging seven to eighteen and occasionally adults. Yes the can learn to read, and yes they do learn to read, BY PHONICS. My present thirteen-fourteen year old has progressed from Grade 2 to Grade 6 level in a year, *by phonics*. Nothing else works — all the coping and faking strategies have already been tried and failed by the time I get to them.

This kind of theory is pernicious; authority figures spread myths and make it eve harder to do what works and to get others to do what works. Please get some real facts — I suggest the National Reading Panel report for starters, see LD In Depth click above — and pass them back to the psychologist with the most tactful suggestions you can make up about “new discoveries”.

Thanks, Des and Victoria. Now I feel better. I’ve been teaching students with LD for 7 years and I’ve been using Slingerland and Lindamood Bell, and I’ve been successful. Now comes this Psychologist from UK saying that I wasted my students’ time! I’ve only used word family for a student with mild mental retardation who didn’t respond to the other approaches that I’ve used. He did respond but he eventually reached a plateau.

Well she’s a school psychologist. Not knocking the many fine school psychologists but what would she know about this anyway. She is quoting dead research or half baked ideas.

I’m sure a few of the kids I work with will learn to read. Do I think they all will, no I don’t. Not for my methods, but they throw in retarded kids and really disruptive kids who really don’t want to be there.

—des

Yes, the *ideal* window of opportunity is, perhaps, for *some* but not all students, then. (There are also very plausible arguments that some children simply by their nature have that window opened later in development - there are numerous books about it - and that it’s only our perverse educational system’s insistence that everybody fit the same profile.)

The ideal window of opportunity for learninga second language is also quite young. However, because it’s a really valuable skill, silly humans go ahead and work hard and learn it later anyway.

I reckon learnign that sound-symbol correspondence is also a valuable skill - the argument of folks like that psych are that no, we should find some other angle (sight words, “lots of exposure to enriched language,” etc.) However that unfortunatelydoesn’t change the nature of written language - guys, guess what, it’s based on sounds. Worth learning, no matter how old you are.