Tuesday 3 December 2013

The spontaneous acquisition of literacy

The idea has been advanced lately, in the comments on this blog,  that if education were not compulsory and also that if children did not go to school, then they would still learn to read and write.  It is suggested that this would be a natural process, a by-product if you like, of living in a literate society. Mention is made of libraries, travel and the internet as means by which literacy would be acquired more or less automatically; perhaps with a little gentle encouragement from parents. This is all so fantastic, that I hardly know where to begin!

I think that part of the problem here is that some of those who comment on this blog simply don’t know how millions of children in this country live. These well-meaning people are so used to living in and visiting  homes filled with books, newspapers and magazines, environments which are overflowing with print, places where adults read and talk about books; that they cannot imagine the linguistically impoverished  backgrounds of the children living in some parts of the country. Learn to read spontaneously? These children don’t really learn to speak, until they start nursery!

Although I am working currently in a school, for many years I used to do home visiting in various capacities. I can tell readers now that an awful lot of children live in homes where there is literally no printed matter. Until they start school, they never see anybody read anything at all. Their homes are filled with flickering screens of various types; four or five televisions, games consoles, DVD players  and computers. Reading is not part of their lives in any way at all. They hear almost no conversation.  Somebody talked of travel yesterday, as though that were also the sort of thing which would stimulate and encourage literacy. I could introduce readers to  five year-old children in east London who have literally never been more than a mile and a half from their home. Their lives are as restricted as medieval peasants. These are children who have never travelled the few miles to central London, never been on a train, never visited a library. On a school trip with a group of seven year-olds from Hackney, I saw children panicking, because they had never seen an escalator before! They were terrified at this strange metal object which threatened to carry them down under ground and we had to take some of them down the fixed stairs. I am not talking here of a few pathological or atypical cases; this sort of life is common on some of the housing estates that I know.

School is a beacon of hope for these children. It is the only hope that they will ever have for being stimulated, for learning, for discovering anything beyond their immediate existence. These kids find it hard enough to learn to read and write as it is. The notion that they would achieve this without school is utterly grotesque.

This is not to say that it is impossible for children to learn to read without direct instruction. Those who see their parents reading a newspaper every day and become curious as to what is going on, those whose parents point out words regularly, saying things like, ‘This sign  says exit’ and so  on, the ones whose homes are filled with books and other reading matter; these children will be primed to acquire literacy. These are the children whose lives are probably enriched by visits to museums and zoos, those whose parents talk to them all the time and set up activities for them. I don’t personally think this the best way for a child to learn reading and writing, but it certainly happens. There is then a tendency for the parents of such children to say; ’I didn’t teach my child to read and now he is applying for Oxford. That must mean that nobody’s children need to be taught to read.’  This is a grave error and I shall have more to say about it in future posts. We are, incidentally, approaching now the crux of the matter; the main anxiety of local authorities when it comes to home education.

8 comments:

  1. Simon wrote,
    “The idea has been advanced lately, in the comments on this blog, that if education were not compulsory and also that if children did not go to school, then they would still learn to read and write. It is suggested that this would be a natural process, a by-product if you like, of living in a literate society.”

    Is this is a reference to my comment by any chance?

    I wrote,
    I don't think it's acceptable to compare the probable causes of increased literacy in the past, when many parents were illiterate, combined with a severe lack of educational resources in working class homes (did the poor even have access to libraries then?), very little travel, lack of the internet, etc., with possible effects on literacy levels today in a society in which the vast majority of parents are literate and literacy is expected and recognised as essential by society. It’s like comparing apples to oranges.

    If so, you are misrepresenting my views. At no point do I suggest that all (or any) children can learn to read spontaneously. I merely suggested that comparing how children learnt to read 150 years ago with how children might learn to read today makes no sense. As well as the positive changes you mention, I also pointed out that attitudes to education appear to have changed radically in the intervening years. Then, the working classes aspired to education for their children, so much so that they were willing to pay for it. I contrasted this attitude with those you described in the school you worked in recently. I’ve no idea why you would conclude that I believe that all children can learn to read spontaneously or even autonomously as our children did. Clearly this is unlikely in the environments you describe.

    I should also point out that I would not describe how our children learnt to read autonomously as ‘spontaneous’. One worked through a phonic book in order to learn, for instance. I’m sure some children learn to read with much less direct, structured learning (one of mine learnt by having books read to them, watching Sesame Street, playing games, etc), and possibly some even *appear* to learn spontaneously, but I suspect this is vanishingly rare without a supportive, loving, enriched environment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Is this is a reference to my comment by any chance?'

      Well, combination of several comments made here recently, including:

      ' Human children, provided their natural instincts are not curtailed by schooling or being locked in a cupboard, are driven to and will acquire the skills they need in order to function in the society into which they are born.'

      We shall, at a later date, have to explore just how children work out when their society requires engineers, train drivers an mathematicians!

      '(one of mine learnt by having books read to them, watching Sesame Street, playing games, etc), and possibly some even *appear* to learn spontaneously, but I suspect this is vanishingly rare without a supportive, loving, enriched environment.'

      This is probably true. I have never disputed that it is possible, in particular cases, for children to learn to read and write in this way. Of course it happens, although speaking personally, I find it a strange and inefficient method. I don't believe that I have ever spoken to a teacher who hasn't heard of such a thing.

      Delete
  2. What you are saying is horrifying, and reinforces my certainty that LA's should be focusing on these children, not chasing a threat that they haven't shown exists.

    After all, if an annual visit from a well meaning Council bod can make that much difference to a family, then it would be selfish of me to have it when there were so many families in far more need than me, wouldn't it?

    And if it doesn't make that difference then it's just a box ticking exercise which is an obscene idea because it uses up time and resources that could be far better spent on early years intervention.

    Anne

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. very well said i agree with you

      Delete
    2. 'What you are saying is horrifying, and reinforces my certainty that LA's should be focusing on these children, not chasing a threat that they haven't shown exists.'

      You touch there Anne, upon an interesting point, which I shall soon be exploring. It is some of these very parents who fall out with their local authority and then withdraw their children from school. This is one thing which local authorities do worry about.

      Delete
    3. Then those parents are known to them, surely? Just as Khyra Ishaq was known and a list that's far too long for my liking. And there are already laws that would allow LA's to intervene, but they're not being used.


      One thing that worries me is that 'blanket' regulation and checking could lead to people who need help being overlooked because they're aggressive and it's so much easier to go and see the people who you can push around because they respect authority and are naive enough to believe them when they invent powers and who will probably give you a cup of tea and a biscuit while you do it.

      Anne

      Delete
  3. 'It is some of these very parents who fall out with their local authority and then withdraw their children from school. This is one thing which local authorities do worry about.'

    Anne put it very eloquently. Local authorities know who these parents are, especially if they've already clashed with the school authorities. When such a parent withdraws their child from school, the local authority already has plenty of powers to step in, if they have reason to believe that the children aren't receiving a suitable education.

    I'm not trained in this field, but surely there are patterns of behaviour that 'professionals' can look out for? A feckless parent who can't be bothered to stimulate their child will usually, at least initially, welcome school attendance, because it gets the child out of the house. If along the line the parent then pulls the child from school because of a quarrel with the authorities, the school should have a history of observations which they can then pass on to the LA. They should know that the parent is likely to find it very difficult to educate the child at home.

    I find it very hard to imagine that a lazy parent would be 'home educating' from the outset and, therefore, be completely unknown to the LA.

    Elizabeth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'When such a parent withdraws their child from school, the local authority already has plenty of powers to step in, if they have reason to believe that the children aren't receiving a suitable education.'

      When, as is currently the case, they cannot visit the home, meet the child and so on, this makes it very hard to estblish that a suitable education is not taking place.

      Delete