David Boulton on an article in the Children of the Code said:
10 times the number of kids who have innately biologically ordered learning difficulties have learning difficulties that are a consequence of what they learned…... Until such time we can read that they are cognitively going askew relative to what they have learnt in the past then our teaching is kind of brute force against this deep core stuff that is working against us.How much of what they are struggling with is an innate learning problem and how much of what they are struggling with is what they have learned in the past working against them learning now.
My comment: That means for every child who has an innately learning difficulty there are 10 children who have learning difficulties as a result of what they have learned.
What is it that these kids had learned that is a hindrance to their learning to read?
Why would David Boulton brush me off when I tried giving him the solution?
Why did he delete my comments made on his website?
Why would Timothy Shanahan say that there is no empirical evidence to my statement that consonants should not be taught with extraneous sounds?
I would not call it a hypothesis because every teacher ought to know that consonants should not be taught with extraneous sounds. It is a statement of fact.
If it is claimed to be a hypothesis, then why has it not been a starting point for further investigation? I started writing about this back in 2010.
I just read the following in an article on a blog post by Greg Ashman.
We know, for instance, of the existence of right-leaning think-tanks that are funded by wealthy individuals or corporations.
Is it possible that many of the professors on LinkedIn and Twitter are funded by some such individuals and corporations?
Why would these professors say stupid things that any right thinking person will not?