Wow! Since I’m new to these sites I’ve just read the back postings. Do NOT apologize Victoria and Sue. I knew there were dragons out there but if these are the kind of “intellectuals” selling things to school boards no wonder there are so many ruined lives. I needed a kick up the backside to accept my son suffered from more than bad teaching , but am now on the right track thanks to several of these discussion boards, but God preserve the innocent from these sales jackals. Repetition? For dyslexics? That makes me feel physically ill at what that would have done to my 6 yr old.
Re: Old Flames
THe “We do so teach phonics” line is a well-rehearsed schtick wiht lots of holes in it that whole language supporters have been saying for years. An otherwise excellent professor of mine is still convinced, I’m afraid, that whole language teachers do, somehow, recognize when kids need more phonics instruction and deliver it.
I don’t worry too much about people who pop over to the board to promote something; they usually don’t stick around too long. It’s that brief anonymity that makes it more likely they turn on the flame-throwers (the same guy with different names has been on a couple of other boards too — unless there are two or three others who have poor spelling & grammar and a very short fuse who just so happened to have looked at but not actually used whatever program that was.)
out the door and in the window
There is an old saying that when you chase the devil out the front door he will come back in through the window.
This is what is happening yet again with the reading teaching issue — you get rid of one bad program and another one pops up, turning out to be the same old stuff from the same old people, with different bright-coloured pictures to distract you.
I am quite distressed to see. right here on LDOnline home page, an article that after many complaints about the last study, the NIH is going to look at “qualitative” reading research as opposed to all quantitative.
Who is complaining? Two guesses, and the first doesn’t count.
And what in Heaven’s name is “qualitative” research? Doesn’t real scientifically verifiable research always include some kind of measurements, even if only questionnaire statistics, so you can replicate and verify and compare it?
How are you going to do “qualitative” research, and who do we think is going to do it? Same guesses, I strongly suspect.
I am going to find out who to make a strong complaint to myself, and would encourage everyone else here to do the same.
PS Just read Whole Language Lives at in depth this site. It’s all there. I knew enough to know I wanted my kids to learn to read phonetically. Was told by one of the school governors the school used a phonetic method, ironically her son was classified dyslexic. When I checked out Oxford learning Tree I saw no phonetics, but thought that must come in class and didn’t understand or remember enough to know exactly WHAT should be there just knew I’d learned phonetically and it works. Even got out some of my old phonics workbooks to try and find what he needed but the kid was lonely we were new in town I thought one year in kindergarton can’t hurt. When they sent these silly books home mostl;y we tossed them aside and I went on reading to him the Narnia chronicles, history, whatever else he wanted to know about. Got scolded for not doing the workbooks with him occasionally, but he had them memorized and stared at ceiling while reciting “Dad jumped in the Pool, Mom jumped in the pool. Biff jumped in the pool.” Now know what all that
gabble I got from teachers was Really about and how they could claim they were teaching phonetics. Now I know Jack has low phonemic sequencing awareness and we hope to get him into a LIPS program asap. And yes there goes the savings, but we’d invest that in a house expecting it to pay off years ahead- why not our son. .