LESSON FOR TEACHERS SYSTEMATIC POLICY NEEDED FOR READING AND LANGUAGE

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33783, 4 March 1975, Page 16

LESSON FOR TEACHERS SYSTEMATIC POLICY NEEDED FOR READING AND LANGUAGE

(By

PETER WILBY,

of the Observer Foreign News Service.)

The British teaching profession received only average marks in a special school report last month. The teachers must try harder, says a committee which has been studying reading and the use of English in schools.

The committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Bullock, former Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University and a distinguished historian, was set up by the Government three years ago in something of a panic. A survey of more than 7000 children in 300 schools had revealed that standards of reading among 11-year-olds had gone jjown since 1964. The average 11-.vear-old, said the survey, had fallen four months behind his 1964 counterpart. Among 15-year-olds, there had been no significant improvement since 1971.

Ironically, the Bullock Committee concluded that panic was unnecessary. It agreed that, in some areas, particularly in the centres of big cities, there had been a marked decline in reading performance over the last decade. But, for technical reasons, the alarming national survey had exaggerated the overall decline.

This is no justification for complacency, says the committee. In a sophisticated society, where jobs involving reading and writing are increasing and where even applications for unemployment pay or a driving licence may require a relatively high reading age, the standards of literacy ought to be higher. The traditionalists in English education have suggested that the blame lies with “progressive” teaching methods, especially in the primary schools. Instead of sitting silent and still in rows of desks, watching the teacher writing on the blackboard, the children are now encouraged to follow their own inclinations. They work in small groups and are allowed some choice about what they do. They are guided, not forced, into learning. They are not told things by the teacher, they discover things for themselves.

The Bullock Committee found no evidence to suggest that the progressive

I methods, in themselves, | were at fault. In fact, the i survey of schools it undertook suggested that more time is still spent on “formal” language teaching than is popularly supposed. During the week of the survey, two-thirds of the teachers of nine-year-olds and half the teachers of six-) year-olds claimed to have planned exercises that would' (extend the children’s vocabI ulary. Discovery methods I The committee is, however, severe on teachers who [carry discovery methods of [learning too far. Discovery! methods were originally! planned as alternatives to) the emphasis on grammar and spelling in English and; on facts and rote-learning in) subjects like history and) geography. But children cannot be left [ to “discover” how to read.) “We cannot accept that the) develooment of language can be left to chance on the principle that a ‘relevant moment’ will occur,” says the committee. Nor can spelling and punctuation be left to chance, though the committee approves of the movement away from giving children lists of words, out of context, to spell. Is there a single “best” method of learning to read, out of nearly 100 teaching methods now on the market? The Bullock Committee says

;,(firmly that there is not. The e | committee’s survey found -[that most schools are using e|a variety of methods. -) Ninety-seven per cent of i|the teachers of six-year-olds |were using the “look and e say” method, which is based sI on the child recognising s[ whole words and which the -I Bullock Committee says is 3 (inadequate, used on its own. 3(But the “phonic” method, .(based on individual letter [sounds, was also being used i by 97 per cent. Yet another [ method, a compromise between “phonic” and “look ’[and say,” based on syllables, was being used by 70 per .[cent. Even a method based ’ on sentences was being used by 51 per cent !! In other words, teachers .[have been nobody’s fools — [they adapted, for their own [purposes, elements of all the [different methods. As the .[Bullock Committee says, [much of the controversy [[about different reading ‘ methods “arises from the | expression of unnecessarily ; extreme opinions often more ! extreme than the real beliefs or practices of those who advance them.” Reading clinics The committee puts forward 333 conclusions and recommendations. It recom- • mends the establishment of “screening” procedures that would identify children • likely to have reading ; difficulties almost from the moment they enter school. It recommends more emphasis on the teaching of reading jin teacher training. | It recommends that mothlers should be able to visit I “reading clinics” for advice on how to develop the language of their pre-school children, just as they already get advice on physical [health and development. Another important recommendation is that . there should be regular national tests, based on samples of schools, to “monitor” standards of literacy. These should be given to 11 and 15-year-olds and should test more than simple reading skills. They should try to assess the extent to which children can comprehend and evaluate what they read. They should also test children’s ability to express themselves in writing. The committee would even like [to see national monitoring of spoken English and recommends further research into how such tests might be developed. But, when he presented his report, Sir Alan Bullock ( emphasised that proposals [calling for a change in attitude were far more import[ant than those involving [money. He says that, in (every school, the teachers should get together and decide on a systematic policy for developing reading and language. This includes secondary schools (in the past, English schools have tended to assume that, once a child has acquired the mechanical skill of reading, the job is over) and it includes teachers in all subjects, even maths and science, because, says the report, language development must be stressed through the entire curriculum. O.F.N.S. Copyright.