Background image

terug

The Observer Magazine, September 13, 1981

 No one knows how children learn to read: how they master the mammoth code-breaking task
 of matching spoken language to a series of small black marks on a page.
 Until now, teaching children to read has been a very hit and miss affair. More than any other
 area of the school curriculum, reading has attracted a mass of schemes and gimmicks designed to
5 get children painlessly over the hurdles which bar their way to school learning and professional
 success. Like freely available medicines, some of the goods are sounder than others; they work for
 some children and teachers, earning their promoters a fortune, while others sink without trace.
 Each new broadening of education, from the arrival of printing and of Bibles in the mother
 tongue in the 15th century to the introduction of universal, compulsory education in the 19th, has
10 boosted the market.
 Some children scarcely seem to need all these paraphernalia, learning to read almost
 imperceptibly. Others defy for years all the efforts of teachers armed with reading schemes and
 flashcards, plastic letters and coloured bricks. Most manage to crack the basic code by about
 seven or eight, but too many, perhaps as many as 20 per cent, fall at the next hurdle: the ability to
15 use their skill as a means of gaining knowledge and enjoyment. In the last year new light has been
 shed on this old mystery. Like pieces of a jigsaw, research studies set up several years ago because
 of national anxiety at levels of illiteracy - have been brought together to yield a picture
 that has revolutionary implications both for parents and primary school teachers.
 Extending Beginning Reading by Vera Southgate, Helen Arnold and Sandra Johnson confounds
20 many dearly-held beliefs. In particular, the authors found that teachers who try to hear all
 children read aloud frequently, hinder their progress. Children learn best if left in peace to read
 the books they choose for themselves. Learning to read is so highly personal a business, it
 depends so much on groundwork before the age of five and the opportunity to practise at home
 and in private, that much of the work must be done by parents.
25 Such a message, while it may seem a welcome dawn of common sense to many parents, is
 deeply threatening to many teachers. They are being asked to change from pedagogues to
 managers and counselors, advising parents and children, diagnosing weaknesses, sorting out
 appropriate remedies, organizing teaching materials, stimulating and encouraging.
 It is when this study is set alongside another carried out under the guidance of the late Professor
30 Jack Tizard in Haringey that the full nature of the revolution becomes apparent. Still not published
 in full, the Haringey study of children aged between six and nine showed that they made most
 progress in reading when their parents heard them read at home at least three or four times a
 week. The effects were dramatically better than if parents simply read to their children or played
 with and talked to them. By contrast, providing extra reading help in school with a specialist
35 teacher four afternoons a week was found to be almost totally ineffective.
 There is, of course, nothing new about parents helping children at home. What is new is the
 official blessing for such activities. The Bullock report (1975) specifically warned against parents
 giving formal help at home. The education world is beginning to realize that parents must be
 taken into partnership in a much more thorough way than anything envisaged by the average
40 parent/teacher association. The days are over when teachers could say to parents, 'you teach them
 to tie their laces and go to the toilet on their own and we will do the rest.'
 
 The Observer Magazine, September 13, 1981