Over the last year or two, quite a few people seem to have fallen prey to the delusion that some kind of war is being waged against home educators in this country. We hear of a campaign of vilification, attempts to introduce legislation which would limit the freedoms of home educating parents and all sorts of other alarming things. The odd thing is that although I know quite a few teachers, social workers and local authority officers, I have never heard any of them say that they wish to put an end to the practice of home education. Nor have I heard this wish being expressed by anybody else. True, many people have reservations about home education. These often centre around tired old chestnuts like socialisation or a supposed inability to study science without a state-of-the art laboratory. Never once have I heard anyone say that they think that somebody should put a stop to home education.
This is quite curious, in view of the feeling of being beleaguered and menaced by hostile forces ranged against them which quite a few home educators seem to have. What can explain the discrepancy between the way things actually are and the way that some parents think that they are? In order to understand this, we must look to the past.
Home education has never been illegal in this country. Indeed, until the nineteenth century, it was probably the most common form of education in use. Even with the advent of universal schooling in 1870, under the so-called Forster's Act, a loophole was left which meant that those who did not wish to send their children to school would not be compelled to do so. Introducing the Elementary Education Act to the Commons on February 17th 1870, W.E. Forster said:
'We give power to the school boards to frame bye-laws for compulsory
attendance of all children within their district from five to twelve. They
must see that no parent is under a penalty for not sending his child to
school if he can show reasonable excuse; reasonable excuse being
education elsewhere, or sickness...'
Just like the later 'at school or otherwise' which was included in the 1944 and later the 1996 Education Acts, so too with the 1870 Act. Instead of 'education otherwise' this had the get-out clause of 'education elsewhere'.
A mythology has built up around the home education movement in this country. Briefly stated, the standard version is as follows. Apart from one or two brave souls like Joy Baker, home education by parents was all but unheard of in the UK until the 1970s. Then a few daring pioneers like Iris Harrison and the parents of Oak Reah attempted to undertake it and were quickly pounced on by their local authority. As a result of the court cases against these early home educating parents, the practice gradually became established as lawful and local authorities were reluctantly compelled to acknowledge the right of parents to teach their own children. This is a very neat and appealing scenario, but unfortunately it is also wholly untrue and misleading. The legal action against both the Harrisons and the Reahs began in 1977, the same year that Education Otherwise was founded. Iris Harrison was a founding member of education Otherwise. All this helped create the myth that local authorities were at that time bitterly opposed to home education and determined to stamp it out. This was not really the case at all. There were other home educating parents at that time who were known to their LEAs and had perfectly good relations with them. Take Harry Lawrence, for instance. He began home educating his five year-old daughter Ruth officially in 1976 and nobody turned a hair. Why should they? It was obvious that the child was being educated and also clear that he had a perfect right to teach her at home if he wished, rather than sending her to school.
The reason Iris Harrison was taken to court was not because her children were not being sent to school. It was because she was allowing them to spend their time doing pretty much as they wished. If her daughter wished to play the violin all day, that was fine. Her son preferred tinkering with engines; he was allowed to do that rather than studying maths or science. In the case of Oak Reah's parents, it was not because they were home educating that they ended up in court. He was not the only home educated child in Leeds; none of the other parents were having any problems. It was the fact that Oak's parents refused to answer any letters or tell anybody what provision was being made for his education that they were prosecuted.
In short, thirty five years ago, just as now, local authorities were prepared to accept home education. What they were uneasy about were families that would either refuse to tell them what they were doing or were not apparently educating their children. Most teachers are well aware that individualised, one-to-one tuition in a relaxed, domestic setting is a fantastically effective method of teaching. Education professionals know perfectly well that children can do well in such an educational setting. What they are dubious about is the benefits of allowing a child to direct the course of her own learning. Because when those running Internet support lists for home educating parents say things like,
'obviously education takes place all the time and much can be learnt from surfing the net and watching TV! It is impossible for education not to take place, we're all learning all the time!'
then it sets alarm bells ringing. When parents casually assert that they are not worried if their children cannot read at the age of twelve and that this does not matter at all, this too causes massive concern. It is these sort of attitudes which pose the real threat to home education in this country and it is this sort of mentality which makes local authorities demand extra powers so that they can ensure that children aged between five and sixteen are provided with the efficient education which is their legal entitlement. The threat to home education is coming not from the local authorities or the Department for Education, but from those within the home educating community who raise the fear that many children who are not at school are nor really being educated at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can see why LA's would be concerned and a lot of it comes from a lack of understanding of how HE can work.
ReplyDeleteFor example, you wrote:
'When parents casually assert that they are not worried if their children cannot read at the age of twelve and that this does not matter at all, this too causes massive concern.'
This bothers me a little because my daughter learned to read at 8. We are structured to a fair degree and had used Jolly Phonics and Oxford Reading Tree amongst other things, she had been exposed regularly to reading but just didnt read until 8. What if the person you mentioned above had a child like that? What if their child wasnt ready? At what age should an LA think that a parent has failed to teach their child to read?
I dont particularly object to LAs doing their duty and can see why they want to make sure Education is occurring but how can they do that AND (or should that be whilst) allowing a child to develop at their own pace. LAs simply do not understand how HE works.
'What if their child wasnt ready? At what age should an LA think that a parent has failed to teach their child to read?'
ReplyDeleteIn your case, I rather suspect that the LA would be able to see at once that you were teaching your child to read and that she was a little later acquiring the skill than some cildren of similar age. I can't see anybody fretting about that. Some parents though believe that children should acquire literacy in the same way that they began to speak; that is to say without any formal instruction. This can be a problem. Others similarly think that mathematics, history and geography can also be picked up spontaneously and that no structure at all should be imposed upon a child's learning. It is these families which cause concern. Obviously, you are right in saying that all children develop at different paces. I also agree that many local authorities simply do not understand what happens in the homes of home educators and since many of the inspectors are former techers, they feel uneasy about a pedagogical technique of which they know little.
"In your case, I rather suspect that the LA would be able to see at once that you were teaching your child to read and that she was a little later acquiring the skill than some cildren of similar age. "
ReplyDeleteWhy is it necessary for a child to teach children to learn to read at any particular age if they can read before they are adults? I have children who learnt to read at 3, 10 and 12 and all have gone on to higher education. Why do you think this is a problem?
"Some parents though believe that children should acquire literacy in the same way that they began to speak; that is to say without any formal instruction. This can be a problem. Others similarly think that mathematics, history and geography can also be picked up spontaneously and that no structure at all should be imposed upon a child's learning."
Are there many home educators who claim to follow only informal learning methods? I've not spoken to or met one, either on-line or off. I know plenty of autonomous educators but of course that's not what you are describing here so I'm interested to know how many HE parents you think follow this informal learning only approach?
Simon wrote:
ReplyDelete"I also agree that many local authorities simply do not understand what happens in the homes of home educators and since many of the inspectors are former techers, they feel uneasy about a pedagogical technique of which they know little. "
This goes back to what I said in my submission to the CSF Bill committee about inspectors not being qualified to inspect home education provision. They come from a school background and it can take several years and an open mind for a person to undo their ingrained prejudices about education, during which time they can wreak havoc and cause much stress amongst home educators.
It is perfectly possible to receive an education without being able to read or write, and there are still parts of the world where the oral tradition of telling stories of the past is alive and well. When this is happening, the only people to get concerned are the LA because there is no written proof of what the child has learned. Even then it shouldn't be a problem because if involved at all, they are supposed to be assessing provision, not results. You can lead a child to knowledge but you can't make him absorb it, as many schools have discovered.
Simon, it is no good trying to pit structured home educators against autonomous ones, because "Anonymous" has implied above, many home educators dip in and out of both styles for various complex reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe real threat to home education in this country is that some people are trying to impose their own narrow view of education on the home educating public. I suggest you take a look in the mirror and ask yourself whether you do more harm than good with your very simplistic portraits of autonomous home education. Is it your role in life to dictate to others how to bring up their children or to limit their choices? What is the purpose of your crusade other than to make a name for yourself and be ever so slightly irritating? Surely it is not to stop children being intrinsically motivated and owning their own learning?
"because "Anonymous" has implied above, many home educators dip in and out of both styles for various complex reasons. "
ReplyDeleteNot quite what I meant but I agree this happens too and can proceed in either direction depending on the needs of the family at the time.
I meant that autonomous education can include informal learning but does not have to, it obviously depends on what the child wants. We autonomously educate and, though much has happened informally (especially when our children were younger) my children have also often chosen structured learning methods(working through text books, correspondence courses, phonics, taught courses, etc). This is still autonomous even though it could not be described as informal because it was child directed/chosen.
"Is it your role in life to dictate to others how to bring up their children or to limit their choices?"
Simon often claims that he is only concerned 'for the children' and protecting their right to an education (as though he is more concerned for my children than I am). However, if he had his way, he would severely limit my children's choices and as a result, their education. My children have also said that they would like the option to provide a similar education to any children they may have, so future generations would also be limited.
"What they are dubious about is the benefits of allowing a child to direct the course of her own learning."
ReplyDeleteSo has Simone never chosen to learn anything by her own choice? How do you think she would have spent her time if you hadn't controlled her learning? Maybe Simone is the reason you doubt autonomous learning rather than autonomously educated children? I mean, if Simone spent every spare minute not controlled by you in front of Jeremy Kyle or on Facebook, maybe I can see why you might expect other children to do the same. Can you not trust parents to recognise education happening in their own home in front of their eyes?
Of course education takes place all the time and much can be learnt from surfing the net and watching TV (I'm sure it's even possible to learn something from Jeremy Kyle!). This doesn't mean that this is all the child does and is the only way they learn. The TV and internet are two potentially excellent sources of learning but every learning resource can range from useless to excellent, books and teachers included!
'Simon, it is no good trying to pit structured home educators against autonomous ones, because "Anonymous" has implied above, many home educators dip in and out of both styles for various complex reasons.'
ReplyDeleteThat is quite true. there is no home educator so fanatically structured that he has no time for spontaneous learning and none so autonomous that they do not impose at least some structure on their children's learning.
'
Is it your role in life to dictate to others how to bring up their children or to limit their choices? '
It is not. I am pointing out what has caused the problems between the local authorities and home educating parents. It is a diagnosis, not a programme of action.
'What is the purpose of your crusade other than to make a name for yourself and be ever so slightly irritating? '
I wasn't aware that I was engaged in a crusade. if I am irritating others, this does not worry me, as long as I am sure that I am describing the situation accurately as I see it.
Surely it is not to stop children being intrinsically motivated and owning their own learning? '
I don't think that it would be possible to stop a child being intrinsically motivated. I have no idea what is meant by 'owning their own learning'.
'
'I have children who learnt to read at 3, 10 and 12 and all have gone on to higher education. Why do you think this is a problem?'
ReplyDeleteThis is arguing from the particular to the universal. You are like a man who says, 'I was beaten regularly at school and it didn't do me any harm'. The fact that your children underwent a certain type of education which you say did them no harm is not a good reason for recommending it for others. Many children flourish in later life despite, rather than because of the education which they received. My own daughter did well enough under the regime which I prescribed, but I would hesitate to recommend it to others. All the available evidence suggests that the earlier a child is able to read, the more advantageous for her future education and learning. I can see no advantage and many disadvantages for a child delaying learning to read until secondary age.
"My own daughter did well enough under the regime which I prescribed, but I would hesitate to recommend it to others."
ReplyDeleteI'm not recommending our method to others either. I just don't want you or anyone else to prevent our family learning in the way that is most suitable for them. Your method is as unstudied as ours (you cannot use research in schools with trained professionals to support your parent taught home education). Should your method be prevented too, just because there isn't oodles of research to support it?
Blogger is messing with posts again! I'll try splitting comments.
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
"I don't think that it would be possible to stop a child being intrinsically motivated."
So the research that found that people who were rewarded for an activity were less likely to spend time on that activity in future compared to another group who were not rewarded didn't have their intrinsic motivation for the activity damaged? If a child learns that their education does not belong to them, that they are learning for the parent, it will damage their intrinsic motivation.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"All the available evidence suggests that the earlier a child is able to read, the more advantageous for her future education and learning."
Yet children in countries that start to teach reading later than the UK ultimately have higher literacy levels on average. All of the research you can find is based on a child attending school. A child attending school will not be able to learn as effectively because school learning requires literacy. You are not comparing like with like.
A child learning at home can learn without being able to read (unlike the school child). They are likely to have much harder texts read to them by their parents or siblings than they would ever have been able to manage themselves as beginner readers and have other learning materials provided that take into account their lack of literacy (again, unlike school children). They will have more time available for this and other types of learning, so their education will be different but not necessarily impoverished and may well be better.
Alan Thomas' research involving 100 families found that late readers rapidly caught up with their peers and did not appear to be academically disadvantaged. Also, the American research released last year compared unschooling with structured home schooling and found no difference in outcomes. Find research that shows late readers, who are fully supported in their learning without literacy, are at a disadvantage, and you might have a point.
'Your method is as unstudied as ours (you cannot use research in schools with trained professionals to support your parent taught home education). '
ReplyDeleteNo, but one can certainly use research data to support the use of various techniques; for instance the structured teaching of reading, the different methods used such as phonics or whole language.
'If a child learns that their education does not belong to them, that they are learning for the parent, it will damage their intrinsic motivation.'
ReplyDeleteI honestly fo not understand what is meant by the idea of a child's education belonging to her; can somebody explain this? Children are not learning for their parents, whatever sort of education they are given. They are learning for themselves and the education is for their benefit. This is so with autonomous education or the most highly structured boarding school. The ultimate benficiary of the education is and can only be the child.
'A child attending school will not be able to learn as effectively because school learning requires literacy. You are not comparing like with like.'
ReplyDeleteNot sure about this. I doubt my daughter would have been able to find out as much about birds, a particular interest of hers when she was eight, had she been illiterate. I'm not sure that school has anything to do with it.
'A child learning at home can learn without being able to read (unlike the school child). They are likely to have much harder texts read to them by their parents or siblings than they would ever have been able to manage themselves as beginner readers '
ReplyDeleteTrue, but a labourious and unnecessary process. You seem to be suggesting that when my daughter was studying mathematics when she was nine or ten, I could have read out the textbooks which explained algebra? this is true, but I cannot see what the advantage would be. Every time she wished to check a point, she would have had to bring me the book so that I could read the page again. How is that better than her reading it herslef; I honestly don't see it. The only reason for my doing things this way would be if I wished to maintain her dependency upon me. I did not; I wanted her to become independent.
'Alan Thomas' research involving 100 families found that late readers rapidly caught up with their peers and did not appear to be academically disadvantaged'
ReplyDeleteAlan Thomas reported that the parents had claimed this, which is quite a different thing. He carried out no tests of reading ability and relied upon what he was told.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"No, but one can certainly use research data to support the use of various techniques; for instance the structured teaching of reading, the different methods used such as phonics or whole language."
Well yes, those methods were used by my late readers but not my early reader. This says nothing about the points were were talking about.
"I honestly fo not understand what is meant by the idea of a child's education belonging to her; can somebody explain this?"
Their mind and what they do with it belongs to them as much as their body does.
"True, but a labourious and unnecessary process. You seem to be suggesting that when my daughter was studying mathematics when she was nine or ten, I could have read out the textbooks which explained algebra?"
ReplyDeleteWhen my children were interested in learning something that required reading they learnt to read. That's how autonomous learning works. Before that they learnt plenty of maths through everyday life and conversations and had a good understanding of many of the concepts. They studied formal, written maths for a year as a teenager in order to gain their GCSE (alongside other subjects). Learning to read late didn't prevent this because they had already built up a good understanding of maths concepts and just needed to add the formal, written side.
"Alan Thomas reported that the parents had claimed this, which is quite a different thing. He carried out no tests of reading ability and relied upon what he was told."
That's why I mentioned the US research, though I doubt they all lied. In my experience it's likely that some parents underestimated their children's abilities too. This certainly has happened to us a various point during their education years.
"The ultimate benficiary of the education is and can only be the child."
ReplyDeleteYes, so why do you feel the need to control it? Do you not trust your child to understand this and want to do well by themselves? You are no different than those parents who train their children in some physical discipline, such as gymnastics or the violin, to the exclusion of other activities. Whether the child wants it for themselves or just to please you is irrelevant to you, you just happen to have chosen academics for your child, something that is more acceptable to most people because it's so common and 'normal' (though even that can be taken to unacceptable extremes, of course). I wanted my children to be able to find their own way (with plenty of support) and to own their own lives, that was part of the reason we chose to HE.
"Not sure about this. I doubt my daughter would have been able to find out as much about birds, a particular interest of hers when she was eight, had she been illiterate."
So she couldn't have watched documentaries, had books read to her, visited museums, zoos, kept birds herself, etc? What could she not have learnt as a non-reader?
Sorry about the multiple comments and strange order. Blogger is deleting posts at random again.
ReplyDelete'"The ultimate benficiary of the education is and can only be the child."
ReplyDeleteYes, so why do you feel the need to control it? Do you not trust your child to understand this and want to do well by themselves? '
To see the absurdity of this argument, it is only necessary to talk of the child's body rather than her mind. Take diet for instance.
'Do you not trust your child to understand this and want to do well by themselves?'
Do we assume that children have an understanding of vitamins and the dangers of sugar? Would we leave them to choose what they eat entirely and assume that they know best? The bad consequences of such a course of action could have a lifelong impact upon a growing child's body. In precisely the same way, the bad coonsequences of leaving them to decide for themselves what they will do could very well have a lifelong impact uupon their minds. In some cases this will be a good impact. In others, not so good. I assumed that when my daughter was five she did not understand enough about calories, vitamins and so on to make an informed choice as to what was good for her. I made a similar assumption about her intellectual and spiritual needs.
'So she couldn't have watched documentaries, had books read to her, visited museums, zoos, kept birds herself, etc? What could she not have learnt as a non-reader?'
ReplyDeleteThe ability to read gives one a greater choice about information. If one wishes to learn the Latin names of birds, then one could certainly watch nature documentaries and wait for somebody to tell you the correct name for the thrush. Or you could simply look it up in the index of a book in the library. Again, she could I suppose have kept coming to me and asking me to look up the Latin names of birds, but this would have been irritating for both of us. I cannot understand why I would promote such childish dependence. My daughter always wanted to be able to do things and find out stuff for herself. I simply provided her with the tools for the job.
'you just happen to have chosen academics for your child,'
ReplyDeleteThat the acquisition of basic literacy and mastery of the four arithmetical operations is regarded by this person as having 'chosen academics' for my child, says it all!
"The ability to read gives one a greater choice about information."
ReplyDeleteNobody is denying this. Of course it will give greater choices and autonomous home educators are all about choice so this isn't going against our philosophy. Some children have a great aptitude for reading from a very early age and some are reading with very little help as young as 2 or 3. And if they ask for help they will get the help they require. Some children do not have an aptitude for it at such an early age, or a desire for it until much older. In the scenario you describe i suspect that a child who was always having to ask their parent for for information would soon start asking for their parent to help them with reading too.
Autonomous home educators are not against helping their children to read. What they don't want to do is to destroy the love of reading by forcing it upon a child who does not yet have the aptitude to do so, and yes some children are ready much later than others. Educating one's child to his or her ability and aptitude and any special needs they may have is well in line with the Education Act , so I don't know why you are making such a fuss about it. Children leave school illiterate even though they have been through the prescribed methods which you adhere to.
another anonymous
'What they don't want to do is to destroy the love of reading by forcing it upon a child who does not yet have the aptitude to do so'
ReplyDeleteThe problem here being that reading is a completely unnatural activity. Vhildren do not 'have an aptitude' for it; they must generally be taught.
'the prescribed methods which you adhere to.'
I'm puzzled here. What are these prescribed methods to which I adhere? The current fad is for synthetic phonics, but I didn't use that. I am a believer in an eclectic variety of methods, with heavy emphasis upon whole language. This makes me something of a heretic among orthodox educationalists today.
Two of my children did this unnatural activity on their own before they were 5. I didn't force it upon them but answered questions as and when they arose. They were both fluent readers by 6 years old. They obviously had an aptitude for it. I barely did a thing as I was very conscious of pushing it as I have seen so many children turned off reading by over zealous attitudes. Many adults I know have told me they read when they were very young to the surprise of their parents. I have a niece who was reading at 2. This doesn't mean we should start making ALL children literate by two, just because some have an aptitude for it at such a young age.
ReplyDeleteMy children also learned through a variety of methods, though not imposed by me. They watched TV which often have programs which teach phonics, they used the computer and were motivated to read so they could go forward in their games, they were read stories, and we have many of the old fashioned Peter and Jane type books around which they looked at. There is no difference in access to materials, it is just about taking the child's lead. It could be say that people who push their children to read by 3 to be able to recite their latin verbs by 4 are not educating their children to their aptitudes or abilities. My 4 year old definitely is not ready for such rigourous instruction. She is very different to her siblings and I expect she will take a good deal longer to learn to read. I have no intention of forcing it upon her.
I don't think either of us can say our way is 100% better, but as both ways have their pros and cons, it would be rather disastrous to try and wipe out either option. Are you not able to be open to other forms of learning, even if you do not agree with them?
'It could be say that people who push their children to read by 3 to be able to recite their latin verbs by 4 are not educating their children to their aptitudes or abilities. My 4 year old definitely is not ready for such rigourous instruction.'
ReplyDeleteGood use of loaded expressions. Note how some people 'push' their children rather than merely teaching them! I cannot offhand imagine why any child would need to know Latin verbs in the modern world, unles she was perhaps growing up in the Vatican City, where Latin is still the official language.
' My 4 year old definitely is not ready for such rigourous instruction.'
My own daughter was not ready for rigorous instruction at four; few children are. That is why the learning of reading was more of a game and an enjoyable activity.
A prep school near me does exactly as I described. I call it *pushing* the children. The teachers at the prep school probably call it teaching. It depends which perspective one looks at this from.
ReplyDeleteCalling autonomous home educators mad could be considered loaded too.
Anyway, this is a very interesting discussion. Thank you.
"Do we assume that children have an understanding of vitamins and the dangers of sugar? Would we leave them to choose what they eat entirely and assume that they know best? The bad consequences of such a course of action could have a lifelong impact upon a growing child's body."
ReplyDeleteYes, we did let them choose what they ate entirely, though of course we did not assume they knew best in this or in their education. We talked to them. We shared our knowledge and experiences and the knowledge and experiences of friends and family about both food and learning. You seem to assume that they would disregard this information and choose a self destructive course if given a free choice, we didn't make this assumption and they didn't self-destruct.
"I assumed that when my daughter was five she did not understand enough about calories, vitamins and so on to make an informed choice as to what was good for her."
You don't think she would have understood if you had explained that these foods contain really good things that help our bodies grow and give us energy for running and playing, we need lots of different foods because our bodies are complicated and use different things from different foods? Ours did. Maybe we would have chosen a different approach to life and their upbringing if it looked as though they had a death wish.
"If one wishes to learn the Latin names of birds, then one could certainly watch nature documentaries and wait for somebody to tell you the correct name for the thrush."
ReplyDeleteI doubt a beginner reader would cope with Latin names, I have enough trouble with them myself as an adult. It's probably better that they ask an adult to look it up for them and help them learn to pronounce it correctly than to attempt to read it themselves.
"Or you could simply look it up in the index of a book in the library."
They would have needed me to take them to the library!
"My daughter always wanted to be able to do things and find out stuff for herself. I simply provided her with the tools for the job."
Yes, we did the same. When they wanted to learn to read we provided them with the tools for the job. I suspect my early reader was like your daughter and preferred to find out stuff themselves - that's why they learnt to read early. The others seemed to prefer asking, learning as a group or with their parents more. Each to their own.
"That the acquisition of basic literacy and mastery of the four arithmetical operations is regarded by this person as having 'chosen academics' for my child, says it all!"
ReplyDeleteLOL, good one Simon. No, I was thinking of the 8 (or was it 9 or 10) A* GCSEs to be followed by A* A Levels, to be followed by Oxbridge.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I am a believer in an eclectic variety of methods, with heavy emphasis upon whole language. This makes me something of a heretic among orthodox educationalists today. "
and Simon wrote,
"When discussing the idea of children learning to read autonomously, it is instructive to examine the Whole Language or Real Books method.... I would argue that those who promoted these ideas are guilty of the worst kind of trahison de clercs. They devalued the very notion of teaching children to read and left many people with the vague idea that it was neither necessary nor desirable to provide any instruction in this vital skill."
' I would argue that those who promoted these ideas are guilty of the worst kind of trahison de clercs.'
ReplyDeleteThis is a fair point. In fact the method which I have always favoured is using flashcards to build up a sight vocabulary combined with some phonics work. Learning whole words in this way, known as Look and Say is often contrasted with phonics. The real books version of whole language, where children are simply expected to learn to read more or less by osmosis, is indeed a bad idea. There are degrees and types of whole language teaching.
We have used similar methods too. Different things worked with different children and several methods were useful for each child. The only difference between our methods of teaching reading appear to be who decides when it happens and which methods are used.
ReplyDeleteEven our early reader (aged 3) used a mix of methods but it was less obvious because they didn't actually ask to be taught to read as the others did. They learnt through being read to (real books), computer games (flash cards and phonics), TV programmes (phonics and Look and Say), games, etc... Some might suggest that our 3 year old learnt to read through osmosis (because we did not set out to teach her to read by following a programme or by setting tasks), but that would be because they didn't see how the child spent their time.