Can't Read, Can't Write

[Minxminnie]

Did anyone else watch this on C4? What did you think?

The C4 synopsis:
Today in Britain, over five million adults have a reading age of 12 or less or, worse, cannot read at all. From dealing with bills, letters, helping with their children's homework, shopping, and finding work, this illiteracy blights nearly every aspect of their lives, especially their self-esteem. Ashamed and embarrassed, many keep the fact that they can't read a secret, sometimes even from their own family.

Can't Read Can't Write is a shocking and moving Channel 4 series, which reveals the hidden realities of Britain's adult literacy crisis. Nine illiterate adults enrol for a six-month reading course which they hope will change their lives. Each has spent over ten years in the education system and yet has failed to learn the most basic skills. Can the inspirational and award-winning teacher Phil Beadle succeed where other teachers have failed?

I thought it was a strange stage in the year to show it, right in the middle of the school holidays, when many don't want to think much about education! But I did watch it.
Typically, it played with many of the genre cliches of reality tv. I got annoyed at the start when Phil said it was the "last chance" for his pupils, then immediately said he never gives up on people!

His "discoveries" about the adult literacy provision in his area were either truly shocking or pure TV manipulation - I don't know enough to judge. He claimed that adult learners are put on a "Skills for Life" course which is more appropriate for learners of English as a Second Language, and there is no help for those who can't decode written language. As proof, he observed a class at Southwark College which was an ESOL course, focusing on fairly high level reading skills, compared to his non-readers. Does anyone know how true this is? Is there any "learning to read" help available for adults?

There were many genuinely moving moments: one woman desperately wants to be able to read Shakespeare and was very eloquent in explaining her urge to read, and another woman managed to read the whole of The Very Hungry Caterpillar after just a few weeks.
For me, the best moment was when Phil Beadle spoke about his own experiences as a secondary teacher: "I was good at getting kids to engage with literature, and fairly good at getting them to write, but if you came into my class unable to read, you pretty much left that way." Sadly, that's true, I think, of many mainstream secondary classes, my own included. I don't have the skills (or the time?) to teach decoding.

I just wondered what anyone else thought of the programme, or the general issue? Overall, it just made me reflect on how important reading is in my own life, and how much I take it for granted.

[David]

I saw the very start, MM, and was just horrified by the statistics. It seems utterly remarkable that in a modern education system so many people can go out into the world without functional literacy - not even able to deal with words in a supermarket! To be honest with you, I find it hard to understand how that happens, but the roots must be in primary provision.

Sadly, that's true, I think, of many mainstream secondary classes, my own included. I don't have the skills (or the time?) to teach decoding.
That's very honest. Is it something that is ever discussed in your school? What happens with these kids during GCSEs etc.?

I was very fortunate in that I never taught in schools that had pupils quite as challenged as that, so I really do have no idea about it.

As a side-note, perhaps the timing of the programme is England-centric in that the schools here are literally just breaking up now for the summer hols!

[Squirls]

Hi Minxminnie ~ I didn't see the programme but I recently read some statistics on this issue in the newspaper and ended up throwing down the paper believing it to be a rubbishy, politically motivated story. However, my son assured by that there's a sizable minority of kids who can hardly read at all and I was utterly staggered. He says that in general it's the kids who don't want to learn. Obviously I'm no expert on this subject, but maybe the education system needs to be much more proactive in asking kids what they want to learn, rather than being overly prescriptive and target driven.

Also it seems odd that people are streamed according to age rather than ability. Everyone learns at different rates. In music education this seems to be readily understood and accepted with sometimes slow growth in individuals often followed by exponential leaps in knowledge, understanding and skill My 14year old learns in classes with kids from 11 to 18.

I wonder how it ever came to be that kids are streamed in this way?

[Minxminnie]

To be honest with you, I find it hard to understand how that happens, but the roots must be in primary provision.

That's definitely true. As you progress through primary, the bulk of the class moves on, and it gets harder and harder to catch up. We've introduced new initiatives up here to catch those who fall behind, and I'm sure the same is happening south of the border: Toe By Toe (which they use in the programme), Reading Recovery etc. But, as with everything, it depends on time and funding. I spent a little time visiting the lower primary to extend my own knowledge of how reading is taught, and it's something I'd like to do more of. However, as one of my primary colleagues pointed out, I'm then seeing the approaches which haven't worked for the non-readers. They need something different by the time they're twelve.

That's very honest. Is it something that is ever discussed in your school? What happens with these kids during GCSEs etc.?!

It falls within the remit of Learning Support: it's not entirely the responsibility of the English teacher, thankfully. In exams, these kids get support: they can have the paper read to them, and their answers can be scribed. Unlike the young man in the programme who went into every GCSE but was unable to read the paper.

As a side-note, perhaps the timing of the programme is England-centric
That's most unlike the UK media ;)
(I did appreciate the BBC having their knuckles rapped for same, and now having to add to every report "in Scotland...")

[Minxminnie]

However, my son assured by that there's a sizable minority of kids who can hardly read at all and I was utterly staggered. He says that in general it's the kids who don't want to learn.
Yes - we have a significant though small number (maybe 5 out of a year group of 200 - more whose literacy is poor though functional.) By the time these kids get to 12, no wonder they don't want to learn. We need to catch them earlier.

Also it seems odd that people are streamed according to age rather than ability. I wonder how it ever came to be that kids are streamed in this way?

I think that streaming by ability could also have its problems, though - would kids want to do reading or maths with younger prodigies?

[Squirls]

I think that streaming by ability could also have its problems, though - would kids want to do reading or maths with younger prodigies?

This may be true, and yet they have no problem learning music this way. I suspect the kids might have no problem too, but competitive parents may and this might reflect in the views of the kids. Maybe we need to think about how we can bring about a paradigm shift.

[David]

(I did appreciate the BBC having their knuckles rapped for same, and now having to add to every report "in Scotland...")
Actually, I must be honest, I've been finding all that very funny. The Beeb are so sensitive about it now that virtually everything is tagged with "Wales and Scotland have their own system..."

It was funniest at the beginning. There was a piece on some initiative in English schools to do with inclusiveness, or something like that. The first half of the package was about this new initiative, then the second half had the reporter going to a Scottish school to tell us that it didn't happen there, along with several pupils being interviewed in slightly bemused fashion about something that didn't apply to them. :D

Anyway, thanks for the explanation, MM! I had almost no contact with primary when I was teaching so it was a bit of a closed book (if that's not an unfortunate metaphor in this context...).

I must admit, I thought the exam papers could only be read out to pupils and answers written if there was a clear problem diagnosed by the ed. psych. - i.e. dyslexia. Can it apply if the candidate simply can't read? The obvious follow-on is that would consequently make the qualification a bit meaningless in a subject such as English, wouldn't it?

It really does seem to need root and branch overhaul, frankly.

[Stewart]

But what the hell had she done all her life to get excited at reading Mars on a bar of chocolate? She was fifty-eight. I didn't watch the show, but reading your comment Stewart, I was first inclined to agree with you. After all, she should have, by 58, had enough cultural knowledge to know that the item she was holding was a Mars bar and the letters on the front made the word Mars.

However, it is one thing to understand that 'Mars' , as a symbol, spells the word Mars and quite another to understand that the letters M..A...R...S and the sounds that correspond to those letters make up the words.

Most illiterate people understand packaging and roadsigns as symbols that connect to meaning but they can't break them down into the building blocks of language and apply them to other texts. And frankly, it is attitudes like the one you show that stop them from doing so. They are made to feel so small and so stupid that more hurdles are thrown up in front of them.

I was a bit confused by the guy telling people that the way they learned how to read at school was "wrong" - they should have been taught the sounds and not the letters. Er, it never did pretty much the rest of the population much harm, did it? Sounded like nonsense to me. Not the illiteracy issue, which is different.My son's whole school which has been steadily moving back to phonics, just as I was taught all those years ago, has just shifted completely to Jolly Phonics for the lower school from next term. It has been shown to move reading skills on very quickly indeed. So yes, sounds are much more essential to reading than the arbitary letters.

ETA - Ironically, I, in my morning fugue, have clicked the Edit button of Stewart's post instead of Quote. I am sorry Stewart, again. This is my post, Hazel, and Stewart's contribution, which thankfully I didn't delete much of, is quoted. Any more of this and I shall resign as mod. :o

[MisterHobgoblin]

I've been illiterate for five weeks this year - staying in countries with non-western alphabets - and it can feel very marginalizing. You can drive through towns and not know what they are called. You can look at menus and see just squiggles. You can't read the names of shops. And then imagine trying to live like that, not just find your way about as a tourist!

And I once worked as a slave to Geoffrey the Giraffe at Toys Я Us. There was a woman there who couldn't read. She put enormous effort into hiding this and most people there just thought she was thick and didn't see the real problem. She was unable to find stock if you asked her to fetch anything. She'd bring an approximation, but it would probably not be the exact model you wanted because she couldn't read the labels. That was an eye-opener. There really are adults out there who cannot read at all.

I can well understand the sense of triumph in being able to read Mars on a bar of chocolate. It would be a sign that the mysteries of the written word had been unlocked - a first glimpse of access to a beautiful world that we all take for granted.

[David]

I was a bit confused by the guy telling people that the way they learned how to read at school was "wrong" - they should have been taught the sounds and not the letters. Er, it never did pretty much the rest of the population much harm, did it? Sounded like nonsense to me. Not the illiteracy issue, which is different.
Well I didn't see the part of the programme that dealt with that but I would imagine he was referring to the teaching of synthetic phonics, which is the current approach and in great contrast to the older ways that these people would have experienced. Back then it was pretty much learn your alphabet, learn how words are spelt and you're fine, aren't you? Except many people weren't.

The letters that we attach to sounds are, after all, fairly arbitrary affairs. Different languages do it different ways. If you teach from the actual 'base' as it were of the sounds that combine to form language you can actually teach it far more effectively, because the brain can assimilate that and apply it more naturally. A little like if you tell someone step-by-step how to assemble different machines they can follow those instructions, but if they discover piece by piece how all the parts actually work and contribute to the whole then they will more easily understand what they're doing with them and progressively will be able to put together all sorts of different machines themselves.

That's very much part of the literacy issue - how we teach children who are not so able or well motivated how to read. The easier and more natural a system is the less likely they will be to give up on it.

[David]

I've moved this to Language and Learning since the issues raised in the discussion seem better suited in that area.

[Minxminnie]

Actually, I must be honest, I've been finding all that very funny. The Beeb are so sensitive about it now that virtually everything is tagged with "Wales and Scotland have their own system..."
Off topic a bit, so I won't go on too much (I could!), but it's about time they were sensitive about it. It does sometimes feel a bit forced, but that just shows how they're not geared up for it.


I must admit, I thought the exam papers could only be read out to pupils and answers written if there was a clear problem diagnosed by the ed. psych. - i.e. dyslexia.

I'm not directly involved in making the case to our exam board, but we just have to be able to prove that special arrangements make a difference - for example, that the child can do history, just can't write down the answers. If there is a medical problem or whatever, it's an easy case to make, but something like dyslexia is a fair definition of the difficulties encountered by these kids - the British Dyslexia Association defines it as follows:
Dyslexia is a specific learning difficulty which mainly affects the development of literacy and language related skills.
It is characterised by difficulties with phonological processing, rapid naming, working memory, processing speed, and the automatic development of skills that may not match up to an individual’s other cognitive abilities.

As long as you can "do" the subject, but just can't read / write the exam, you get the help, which seems fair enough. Of course, when it comes to English ...

Can it apply if the candidate simply can't read? The obvious follow-on is that would consequently make the qualification a bit meaningless in a subject such as English, wouldn't it?


Hmm. You might think so. I couldn't possibly comment.

[Minxminnie]

I've moved this to Language and Learning since the issues raised in the discussion seem better suited in that area.

Thanks, David. I thought of putting it there first!

[David]

Off topic a bit, so I won't go on too much (I could!), but it's about time they were sensitive about it. It does sometimes feel a bit forced, but that just shows how they're not geared up for it.
No, I do understand that, but it's just very ham-fisted at the moment.

Of course, when it comes to English ...
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Of course in other subjects specific difficulties in English should allow for leeway, but since English is a qualification that demonstrates to potential employers the ability of that individual to use the language then it's a bit farcical to move the goalposts for some people. I have every sympathy with them and they should be given extra help, but a qualification has to mean something objective. It would be like giving me when I was at school a 15 minute head start on cross-country because I was useless at it. If I'd ended up sharing a podium place with one of the fit kids it would have been deeply unfair.

[MisterHobgoblin]

It would be like giving me when I was at school a 15 minute head start on cross-country because I was useless at it. If I'd ended up sharing a podium place with one of the fit kids it would have been deeply unfair.
Although that is very much what we are asked to accept when we are told that the Paralympic Games are of equal status to the Olympic Games.

[Calliope]

I've been illiterate for five weeks this year - staying in countries with non-western alphabets - and it can feel very marginalizing. You can drive through towns and not know what they are called. You can look at menus and see just squiggles. You can't read the names of shops. And then imagine trying to live like that, not just find your way about as a tourist!

And I once worked as a slave to Geoffrey the Giraffe at Toys Я Us. There was a woman there who couldn't read. She put enormous effort into hiding this and most people there just thought she was thick and didn't see the real problem. She was unable to find stock if you asked her to fetch anything. She'd bring an approximation, but it would probably not be the exact model you wanted because she couldn't read the labels. That was an eye-opener. There really are adults out there who cannot read at all.

I can well understand the sense of triumph in being able to read Mars on a bar of chocolate. It would be a sign that the mysteries of the written word had been unlocked - a first glimpse of access to a beautiful world that we all take for granted.
I'm a little embarrassed to consider how young my boys were when they could read the word 'Mars' - particularly when it was on the wrapper. Children copy. If the adults around them read, they read. I feel like there should be pamplets handed out in maternity wards. read to your children Because it's when they're read too regularly - and for entertainment, not for lessons - that the concept of the squiggles being related to language first occurs to them. It can be a very natural, organic process. I have magnetic letters on the fridge which I use to make words like MILK when pouring some (how to spell JUICE when you have only one O is a joke that doesn't quite work when typed out ;) ) My two younger sons (I hadn't worked it out with the oldest) were calling out the letters on store names while they were still in their prams.

What I'm getting at is that it's a matter of educating the parents as much as the children. If you show parents how to make reading part of their children's natural development, then that will be part of the parenting model those children take into their own parenting. Illiteracy cycle broken, hopefully.

[Squirls]

I'm a little embarrassed to consider how young my boys were when they could read the word 'Mars' - particularly when it was on the wrapper. Children copy. If the adults around them read, they read. I feel like there should be pamplets handed out in maternity wards. read to your children Because it's when they're read too regularly - and for entertainment, not for lessons - that the concept of the squiggles being related to language first occurs to them. It can be a very natural, organic process. I have magnetic letters on the fridge which I use to make words like MILK when pouring some (how to spell JUICE when you have only one O is a joke that doesn't quite work when typed out ;) ) My two younger sons (I hadn't worked it out with the oldest) were calling out the letters on store names while they were still in their prams.

What I'm getting at is that it's a matter of educating the parents as much as the children. If you show parents how to make reading part of their children's natural development, then that will be part of the parenting model those children take into their own parenting. Illiteracy cycle broken, hopefully.

I agree absolutely with all you've said, but it's important not to get too stressy about it when kids are young. My brother recently told me he was worried about is boy's development - (he's a really bright kid), saying he doesn't appear to be picking up reading as quickly as he thought. I told him to give the kid a break - he's only just turned 3 for goodness sake. :D
My brother's doing all the right things apart from being a bit of a stress-head.

[gg106]

No, I do understand that, but it's just very ham-fisted at the moment.


Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Of course in other subjects specific difficulties in English should allow for leeway, but since English is a qualification that demonstrates to potential employers the ability of that individual to use the language then it's a bit farcical to move the goalposts for some people. I have every sympathy with them and they should be given extra help, but a qualification has to mean something objective. It would be like giving me when I was at school a 15 minute head start on cross-country because I was useless at it. If I'd ended up sharing a podium place with one of the fit kids it would have been deeply unfair.


As I understand it candidates cannot have a reader for English papers, but they can have a scribe if necessary.

[David]

As I understand it candidates cannot have a reader for English papers, but they can have a scribe if necessary.
Thanks!

[Minxminnie]

As I understand it candidates cannot have a reader for English papers, but they can have a scribe if necessary.

In Scotland, we also allow readers: in fact, many pupils are allowed a reader but not a scribe.

[gg106]

In Scotland, we also allow readers: in fact, many pupils are allowed a reader but not a scribe.


Even for the English papers? That doesn't really make any sense.

[gg106]

Just been on the JCQ website to try and seek some clarification.

Basically readers are not allowed for any subjects that are testing reading per se. Also a reader cannot explain what thee questions mean they can only read them out.

There are also lots of other considerations such as extra time, enlarged print, word processing etc.

These guidelines are standard across the UK (England, N Ireland, Scotland and Wales), which I suppose means that it leas the playing field is levelled fairly.

[Minxminnie]

Even for the English papers? That doesn't really make any sense.

As I said before - you might think so, eh?

These guidelines are standard across the UK (England, N Ireland, Scotland and Wales), which I suppose means that it leas the playing field is levelled fairly.

Hmm. I must look into that. But I can tell you that candidates for English exams in Scotland are allowed a reader for the passage and questions. As I understand it, it is argued that they are testing comprehension, not (just?) decoding. This used to be indicated by means of a star on the certificate, but as far as I'm aware, disability discrimination legislation now prevents this. I have my concerns.

[Minxminnie]

I've just had a look at the website, gg. It looks to me as if the document you're referring to - Regulations and Guidance Relating to Candidates who are Eligible for Adjustments in Examinations - doesn't have our exam board's logo on it, and doesn't refer at the start to our qualifications (although our board is part of JCQ).

I'm trying to be very circumspect in what I'm saying here, as it's a field related to mine but not one where I have actual responsibility for decisions made, and I don't want to say the wrong thing ...

[gg106]

Ashamed to admit t but don't now much about the scottish sytem, bt the website does mention Scottish Highers. Is that not what you do?

If you look on the website for your exam board it should given necessary info and guidelines for access arrangements. In my experience, its something you need as a teacher to be aware of, specially if you work in a school where the Senco is particularly inefficient!!

[Minxminnie]

Ashamed to admit t but don't now much about the scottish sytem, bt the website does mention Scottish Highers. Is that not what you do?

Yes, we do - but our exam board (SQA) wasn't identified on that particular document. The legislation is very possibly different here, as we have a separate legal system.

If you look on the website for your exam board it should given necessary info and guidelines for access arrangements.
I will have a good look - I wasn't aware of it.

the Senco
?

[megustaleer]

Special Educational Needs Coordinator

[Minxminnie]

Ahh! Thanks.

[MisterHobgoblin]

To be honest, it doesn't really matter whether they let people have readers or not as the qualifications are totally meaningless these days. Everyone gets As. They might as well just dispense with the exam bit altogether as that just creates unnecessary stress.

[gg106]

Sorry MM

Senco - Special Educational Needs Coordinator

[gg106]

To be honest, it doesn't really matter whether they let people have readers or not as the qualifications are totally meaningless these days. Everyone gets As. They might as well just dispense with the exam bit altogether as that just creates unnecessary stress.


AAHH is that th case? Tell it to all those kids who don't get As!!!

[Minxminnie]

Sorry MM

Senco - Special Educational Needs Coordinator

Educational jargon, eh? That would be a PTLS here - Principal Teacher of Learning Support.

Aah, I have a few days before I go back and realise I need all those acronyms again!

[gg106]

Educational jargon, eh? That would be a PTLS here - Principal Teacher of Learning Support.

Aah, I have a few days before I go back and realise I need all those acronyms again!

Yeah, don't you just love 'em?

Enjoy your last few days of r 'n r. It will soon be a distant memory ;)

[nonsuch]

It seems utterly remarkable that in a modern education system so many people can go out into the world without functional literacy

And yet our A-level results are better than ever and we're expecting 50% of high school leavers to become graduates. We're obviously brilliant at the top and useless at the bottom.