Fwd: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Has brain science changed how you teach about readi

[Cambourne Brian]

> From: Cambourne Brian <bcambrn at uow.edu.au>
> Date: 2 February 2010 9:33:40 AM
> To: "richardallington at aol.com" <richardallington at aol.com>
> Cc: "dolson at oise.utoronto.ca" <dolson at oise.utoronto.ca>, "reading-hall-of-fame at nottingham.ac.uk 
> " <reading-hall-of-fame at nottingham.ac.uk>, "tsticht at znet.com" <tsticht at znet.com 
> >
> Subject: Re: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Has brain science changed how  
> you teach about readi
>
> My memories are similar to Dick's.
>  I  also remember I doing the research for a couple of Keynotes  
> which I did at IRA and/or NCTE at the time  on the way the extreme  
> right in our both our countries conducted an orchestrated campaign  
> to spread dis-- and mis- information about the theory and pedagogy  
> of W/L.
>
>  I  also vaguely remember a piece of Californian legislation called  
> "Bill 1086" ( or "Proposition 1086")  and a rather belligerent  
> grandmother named Marian Joseph leading the charge against W/L . The  
> "1086" sticks in my memory because it's also the name of a deadly  
> poison which the Australian government uses to poison dingos by  
> putting it into tasty chunks of meat and dropping thousands of such  
> chunks from aeroplanes .
>
> "1086" is stored in my mind as a metaphor for the poison which anti- 
> W/L forces tried to use to "kill off"  W/L.
>
> I also  have a similar concern to David concerning the need for kids  
> to be "explicitly taught"  letter-sound correspondnences.
>
> I'd take it a step further and add for-- "for reading". I can see  
> how letter-sound correspondences are essential for spelling--- but  
> there's more and more evidence that the role of phonics in effective  
> reading ( ie comprehension of meaning) is rather trivial and would  
> be best taught as David suggests---(JIT)
>
> Brian C
>
>
>
>
>
> Assoc. Prof. ( Dr) Brian Cambourne
> Principal Fellow
>  Faculty of Education
> University of Wollongong
> Northfields Rd Wollongong
> AUSTRALIA
> Phone: Overseas callers
> Home 61-244-416182
> email<brian_cambourne at uow.edu.au
>  Mobile/Cell phone: 0408684368
>
>
>
> On 02/02/2010, at 8:06 AM, richardallington at aol.com wrote:
>
>> David
>> The collapse of reading in scores in CA dates back to the passage  
>> of proposition 13 (under Reagan as gov) which limited property  
>> taxes to whatever you are paying today as long as you don't sell  
>> your house and also limited the tax levies school districts could  
>> levy. five years after prop 13 passed scores were down and have  
>> stayed down, even with the passage of new laws requiring a phonics  
>> based curriculum Iimplemented in last basal adoption where Open  
>> Court and H-M were only options) and phonics testing of teachers  
>> (virtually all passed).
>>
>> It is also wrong to call CA curriculum as whole language since it  
>> was a literature-based basal adoption and I know of no WL  
>> proponents who recommend a basal approach. Additionally, about one  
>> in ten classroom teachers ever received any professional  
>> development on the new curriculum model. So what I saw there was  
>> basal lessons using excerpts from children's books. Nothing really  
>> much different from the lessons before WL curriculum.
>>
>> Dick Allington
>> University of Tennessee
>> A209 Bailey Education Complex
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Olson <dolson at oise.utoronto.ca>
>> To: richardallington at aol.com
>> Cc: richardallington at aol.com; tsticht at znet.com; reading-hall-of-fame at nottingham.ac.uk
>> Sent: Mon, Feb 1, 2010 3:38 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Has brain science changed how  
>> you teach about readi
>>
>> Dear Colleagues:
>>
>> Can anyone help refute the claim in S. Duhaene's "Reading in the  
>> Brain" that "the reading wars culminated in 1987 when the state of  
>> Californa... pass bills favoring the whole-language apprroach...  
>> and reading scores plummeted" in 1993 and 1994.  Hence, they went  
>> back to phonics training.  Perhaps it is true but I would be  
>> surprised if the case were that clear.
>>
>> No doubt children must?  Perhaps they can be taught on a JIT (just  
>> in time) basis, ie. when they are needed.  I suppose this was what  
>> drove the combattants into the trenches (I hope not again).
>>
>> David Olson
>>
>> <ATT00001.txt>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20100202/37dfd305/attachment-0001.html