|Read a Post for Phoney Phonics: How Decoding Came to Rule and Reading Lost Meaning|
|Reply to this Post|
Re: Re: Re: Phonics Flawed Mary DeFalco
|Posted By: John Donohue on August 24, 2020|
|Does the syntax at the bottom of your post signal you wish to end this interaction?|
In any case, here is my bullet-point rejection ...
1) Reading Recovery is/was a total disaster.
2) "Including phonics" as a poor sop somewhere at the bottom of a bag of Constructivist strategy is not "Phonics." Absolute necessity for Systematic Phonics First, which subsumes syllabic discrimination and phonemic awareness, leading to masterful ability to Decode written English text – that is my position. You evade that without mastery of decoding, no human can read English.
3) My point is proven with one simple example. In separate trials, hand a newspaper to two children, one who can decode, the other who cannot. Pick a random story. A story with no pictures. Ask them to read it aloud. Ask them to put into their words what the writer of the story said. [Do not ask them their opinion, reaction, emotion, objection, or inspiration -- you can do that later.] Which one of them can read?
From that, I'll ask again, if you or any other person reading this wishes to respond:
My side [Systematic Phonics First, which subsumes syllabic discrimination and phonemic awareness, leading to masterful ability to Decode written text] also champions all Rich Elements of Reading anyone might hope for.
All we fight for is to not deprive the child the joy of attaining this one skill, masterful decoding, which if imparted correctly and at the correct sensitive moment, is easy, fun, and quickly attained, setting the mind up for a lifetime of rich literacy and independence.
Why do you fight so hard to destroy this?
| Phonics Flawed Mary DeFalco by Anthony DeFalco on August 22, 2020|