Sunday, April 19, 2020

My discussion with phonics proponents on Twitter (Part 1)



I have maintained for the past 10 years that we will end the reading wars if we teach the pronunciation of consonants the way it was meant to be taught.

A group of ladies who are phonics proponents insists that teaching consonants with extraneous sounds cannot be the reason why kids shut down from learning to read.

If this is not the reason, then should they not say why kids shut down/ disengage from learning to read. When I ask them for some specific reasons they come up with ‘there are many reasons’ but they do not come up with any specific ones.

The first of these ladies is Sue Lloyd of Reading Reform Foundation UK who says that there can be no harm in teaching consonants with extraneous sounds. Yet she is the one promoting Systematic Synthetic Phonics (SSP). 

Is it because she comes from the UK where the ‘Charlie and the alphabets’ episode comes from? OR is it because she is afraid that she will not have kids coming to her for intervention or purchasing her products if they are taught the correct pronunciation of phonemes?

I must add that I believe that Sue Lloyd is a very nice lady. It is her blinkered view that is the problem. She is so bogged down with her SSP that she cannot see that there are kids, even in the UK, who learn to read despite SSP not being taught, let alone the rest of the world.

Debbie Hepplewhite who also comes from the UK agrees with me that in ‘Charlie and the Alphabets’, the sounds of consonants are not that great. She too does not believe that teaching consonant with extraneous sounds is the cause of kids being confused.

The way consonants are pronounced in the ‘Charlie and the alphabets’ episode is how consonants are taught in many schools around the world. Could this be a way to get more students to disengage from learning to read and then give them intervention classes?

What do these phonics proponents mean by the pronunciation of the consonants in that episode as ‘not great’ but ‘it will not cause kids to shut down’? Have they interviewed kids who once were unable to read and then, after teaching, were able to read? Of course, they have not but I have.

Insistence on not teaching Dolch words.

As I have said several times, I agree with Sue Lloyd’s way of pronouncing the consonants except for the letters ‘b’ and ‘p’. The proper way of pronouncing all the letters of the alphabet are as per the lady in the clip here. Teach the pronunciation of consonants the way she does and we will see an immediate reduction of kids needing intervention. There will be a dramatic reduction in kids leaving school as illiterate.

Why would Sue Lloyd or any other sane person insist that Dolch words should not be memorized?
Joining Sue Lloyd and Debbie Hepplewhite is Sara Peden from Canada and here are some of the discussions I had with her which was a waste of my time as she too has her mind made up and will not consider what I have to say.

It has been more of an argument with all these ladies instead of a discussion. They were more interested in who is right rather than what is right.

Sara Peden Advancing Structured Literacy Practices
Replying to @luqmanmichel , @debbiehepp and @suelloydtcrw


“I think you'll find complete agreement among those who know how to teach phonics re: consonants shouldn't be taught with extraneous sounds. Fixing that, if it's an issue is necessary, but by no means 'cure all'. I teach consonants sound correctly and still have lots more to teach!”

My comment now: ‘…fixing that if it is an issue?’ (Sara Peden)
She says that she knows that teaching the correct pronunciation of consonants is vital and yet she doubts that it is an issue. She and her phonics proponents will lose a lot of business if the pronunciation of phonemes is taught correctly as there will hardly be any students requiring intervention. 


“I teach consonant sound correctly and still have a lot more to teach.” (Sara Peden)

Did I in any way say teaching consonants correctly is all you have to do and there is nothing else to teach? 

She keeps putting words into my mouth thinking she can get away with it. This is not her first attempt.

She was arguing when I wanted a discussion so that we may together reduce illiteracy.
Of course, there is much more to teach and I have said this in my blog all along. The foundation is teaching the pronunciation of phonemes of consonants correctly so that children will read much earlier than they are now as there will be no confusion. The kids do not have to figure out how to read. You cannot teach kids ‘buh ah tuh’ is bat and then call it phonics. The kids predisposed to disengaging from learning to read will not shut-down from learning to read if they are taught pronunciation of consonants correctly as done by the lady in the clip above. As far as the teaching of the pronunciation of phonemes is concerned, there is only one correct way for all kids throughout the world.

2 comments:

Sara P. said...

You write:
"A group of ladies who are phonics proponents insists that teaching consonants with extraneous sounds cannot be the reason why kids shut down from learning to read."

You are mistaken. I have repeatedly stated my position and it is NOT that extraneous sounds cannot be the reason why kids shut down. Each time that you say "NO" kid will shut down if taught correct phoneme pronunciation I respond by acknowledging how very important is correct phoneme pronunciation AND that it is not the *only* reason kids may shut down.

Frequently repeating something doesn't make it true. No matter how often you say that "no kid" will shut down if taught correct pronunciation, it will still be factually inaccurate.

I think that you aren't comprehending what is being said. No one is saying that poor teaching of phoneme pronunciation won't contribute to kids shutting down. Children being taught in a way that does not help them learn will contribute to shut down. The point being made is that there are *many* things that contribute to kids shutting down and correct phoneme pronunciation is just one of them. You say that we haven't given other examples. You are again, inaccurate. I did. I specifically tried to show you that there are reasons not even related to teaching that may contribute to children shutting down. I said:
""No kids will disengage" is silly. Some will disengage from certain learning situations 4 reasons that have nothing to do with teaching. If a child experiences trauma, 4 instance, some will disengage no matter how perfect the teaching. Need 2 think about the kids & the teaching."

And finally, may I point out that when you misinterpret what someone wrote, that does not make them wrong. You misinterpret me when you say:

"She says that she knows that teaching the correct pronunciation of consonants is vital and yet she doubts that it is an issue."

I said:

"“I think you'll find complete agreement among those who know how to teach phonics re: consonants shouldn't be taught with extraneous sounds. Fixing that, if it's an issue is necessary, but by no means 'cure all'. . . ."

By that, I meant to convey that it's sometimes an issue (some teachers need to correct their pronunciation; some students have been previously taught by teachers who pronounced phonemes incorrectly), but not *always* an issue (some teachers do it correctly and some students have already been taught correctly).

Please don't assume that because you haven't understood what someone means then they must be wrong. Have you considered that the reason the discussion seemed to you to turn into an argument was that you didn't understand what was being said to you?

I have reached the conclusion that you aren't interested in listening to others; rather, you only care to amplify yourself. Your point of view is no longer of interest to me.

Luqman Michel said...

Thank you Sara Peden. Is this not much better than insisting that we should deal with this on Twitter which limits the letters we can use? Thank you again for your comment.

I apologise if I had misinterpreted your statement. I quoted what you had said then and now - you said and I quote:

"Fixing that, if it's an issue is necessary, but by no means 'cure all'. . . ." By that, I meant to convey that it's sometimes an issue."

My response is that it is the main issue and I do not agree with your "if it an issue but by no means cure-all".

I am only concerned with kids who shut down from learning to read. The foundation of learning to read is phonemes. If you care to listen to the videos I have of university students in Australia who pronounce the sounds of phonemes wrongly and yet are able to read the list of nonsense words correctly you will understand that the majority of kids learn to read regardless of the way they are taught.

My concern is the 20 % or so of kids who shut down due to confusion. They are the majority of kids classified as dyslexic.

You have said that you had not seen any of my links and the YouTube videos I had requested you to listen to before continuing with your comments. You then replied after listening just to a small part of my first video that you do not care to listen any further.

How do we have a discussion if you do not listen to the end of a less than 3 minutes video?

Listen to the videos and then question me on what I have written in my blog post or what I have recorded on the video. What specifically do you disagree with?