G'morning Bob,

 MM> The reason for this seems simple upon analysis - learning
 MM> to read is a matter of small descriminative learnings from
 MM> conception that build on each other until true reading is
 MM> triggered off by external events such as formal teaching at
 MM> age 5 or 6.

 MM> In fact, I'd argue that we overlook the critical age of 0-2
 MM> in trying to accelorate the learning of reading  -  that we
 MM> then to our best to impede the process by insisting on
 MM> teaching infants to read aloud  -  and that we finish it
 MM> all off by abandoning people at that stage (at about 16)
 MM> when they should be taught to read silently and at 2 or 3
 MM> times faster.

 bk>  Well, I'd like to dispute that with you, but I agree with
 bk>  everything you have said. I had a teacher, back in 8th grade,
 bk>  who emphasized the reading techniques you recommend for later.
 bk>  They work.

That's very kind of you - but a terrible commentary on our 
educational authorities and researchers !

We just lost an expert here - Marie Clay, 81, famous for devising 
the "Reading Recovery" process for 6-year-old backward readers now 
used in dozens of countries.  She analysed teachers, teachings and 
5 year-olds  ...  and all her answers were directed to the 5/6 
year-old situation.

I believe this focus came about simply because schools and 
education authorities have insisted for 150 years that starting 
school is when children should learn to read - and that therefore 
research should start there, too.

Dame Marie was a tutor in the Education Department at Auckland 
University when I was a student there,  and a very effective 
researcher - rising later to be the Prof of Education there in 
later years.

Tempes fugit, I guess.

Miles.

+--------------------Miles-Maxted-------------------+
| 116 Sunrise Avenue, North Shore City, New Zealand |
| Ph/Fx/As: ++64-9-478-3138   Mob: ++64-21-296-3891 |
+---------------------------------------------------+
 
___ MultiMail/Win32 v0.47

--- Maximus/2 3.01