Things are made much easier for beginning readers if they are explicitly taught the regular correspondences between spelling and sound. It enables them to sound out words they haven’t seen in written form before, provided they know those words in spoken form.
Teaching spelling-sound correspondences is the first step in the ‘structured literacy’ approach to teaching reading. Mandating that approach was one of Erica Stanford’s first moves when she became Education Minister.
Different languages have different spelling-sound mappings. For example, in English, the letters ‘wh’ correspond to a /w/ sound, as in ‘where.’ But in te reo Māori, the same letters correspond to a /f/ sound, as in ‘whānau.’
Because the two languages have different spelling-sound correspondences, it is a mistake to introduce beginning readers to both at the same time. In fact, if a child is learning to read in English, it is best to also avoid English words that don’t follow the regular rules, until they are fluent with the regular spelling-sound mappings.
Children need to master the spelling-sound correspondences of one language before they tackle those of another. Otherwise, they are likely to become confused.
That is why Minister Stanford asked the Ministry of Education to remove Māori words from reading books for Year 1. That move was widely reported in the media last week.
It took me just six brief paragraphs to explain the reason for Stanford’s decision. Yet, none of the mainstream media clearly articulated that reason. Apart from a conversation with Professor Elizabeth Rata on The Platform, no structured literacy experts were interviewed.
Instead, a range of school principals and academics were invited to give their mostly uninformed views. There was a lot of handwringing about Stanford devaluing the Māori language. Predictably enough, some commentators called her decision racist.
According to one headline, Stanford has ‘banned’ Māori words from our schools. In fact, she explicitly asked the Ministry to include Māori words in the English curriculum from Year 2.
Sadly, the episode is emblematic of a media that prefers confecting outrage to informing the public. Inflammatory headlines, biased selection of interviewees, and deliberately ignoring the facts are all part of the playbook.
Fortunately for our young people, Minister Stanford is not easily intimidated. But shame on our broken media.
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
Different languages have different spelling-sound mappings. For example, in English, the letters ‘wh’ correspond to a /w/ sound, as in ‘where.’ But in te reo Māori, the same letters correspond to a /f/ sound, as in ‘whānau.’
Because the two languages have different spelling-sound correspondences, it is a mistake to introduce beginning readers to both at the same time. In fact, if a child is learning to read in English, it is best to also avoid English words that don’t follow the regular rules, until they are fluent with the regular spelling-sound mappings.
Children need to master the spelling-sound correspondences of one language before they tackle those of another. Otherwise, they are likely to become confused.
That is why Minister Stanford asked the Ministry of Education to remove Māori words from reading books for Year 1. That move was widely reported in the media last week.
It took me just six brief paragraphs to explain the reason for Stanford’s decision. Yet, none of the mainstream media clearly articulated that reason. Apart from a conversation with Professor Elizabeth Rata on The Platform, no structured literacy experts were interviewed.
Instead, a range of school principals and academics were invited to give their mostly uninformed views. There was a lot of handwringing about Stanford devaluing the Māori language. Predictably enough, some commentators called her decision racist.
According to one headline, Stanford has ‘banned’ Māori words from our schools. In fact, she explicitly asked the Ministry to include Māori words in the English curriculum from Year 2.
Sadly, the episode is emblematic of a media that prefers confecting outrage to informing the public. Inflammatory headlines, biased selection of interviewees, and deliberately ignoring the facts are all part of the playbook.
Fortunately for our young people, Minister Stanford is not easily intimidated. But shame on our broken media.
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
9 comments:
To the grandparent/great grandparent generation brought up on phonics the explanation is so obvious it barely needed publicity. But for the rest publicity did all but explain. RNZ repeated the topic but despite the simplicity of the explanation, almost all just with emphasis on the criticism from pro maori. Plus a lot of waffle about the prowess of multi lingual persons. Exceptional examples and Northern Europeans generally are not a suitable comparison for the lagging pupils of present day diluted NZ. My late mother in law taught in the 40s. Words not formed from basic phonics were addressed later. Those which very obstinately defied the rules were defined as "look and say" words, which had to be individually remembered. Success was considerable but there was no distraction from stone age hobby language te reo, or by majority teachers afflicted with the easy going attitude of te ao and tikanga.
One thing that always interests me is that most people don't consider that the written word is repeating what another person has spoken. Everything we read has another person's voice.
Hence when we say to our children: let me read you a story, they hear the words.
To add to the confusion, how Maori pronounce different sounds depends on which iwi / which part of the country they are in, and what the words are. Wh is NOT pronounced as an 'F' sound in Taranaki / Wanganui (think 'Whanganui' or 'Whawakaiho')
My observations in teaching and being involved in early reading for decades is that some children have very good memories for remembering the irregular common 'sight ' words in English like you, one , were , have and are and the ability of teachers to teach these words by sight varies but some children have great difficulty and need multiple exposures to these irregular words . Because te reo words have vowels, that are very different from English , it puts them in the category of sight words. Hence for many children this would mean the words need multiple repetitions in reading books .Just one exposure in one reading book 'At the Marae', would not be sufficient for them. They would need to be placed in other readers as well . This is quite different from the repetition of common irregular English words , like prepositions , pronouns and verbs mentioned above which would occur frequently in readers anyway because they are common.
Except for Michael , I haven't been convinced by the arguments, of so called experts many of whom have probably never successfully taught a struggling child to read, like a severe dyslexic we had who at the age of 18 could read only five words. Linguists , writers of children's books , speech therapists , Maori culture experts have all been consulted on this topic but phonics is by definition a very practical subject - teaching small children or beginners to read . It is not phonetics nor entirely an academic subject. There is a mountain of scientific research which points to intensive phonics being the best for teaching reading but a lot less on the actual instructional methods. I believe the language of early readers should be made as natural as possible with the addition of more common words . A diet of strictly decoding books doesn't encourage flexibility. WL readers are not the answer either.
For the sake of those who don't learn to read easily, and since we have appalling results in international literacy tests-the worst in the English speaking world along with one of the longest tails of underachievement in the developed world we need to concentrate on those who have difficulties with learning to read . These include Maori children as well. Building up their 'mana' , by mixing English literacy with te reo will not help them , either . Sociology /psychology has too much influence in education.
The extent to which early colonists misheard maori, despite striving to record accurately, never ceases to amaze me. Why did they use wh if they heard f? The Wanganui/Whanganui situation is quite absurd.Was it the outcome of consultation deliiberately protracted to gain mana and maximise expenses payments?
I gather that to speak maori correctly requires exhibiton of all those speech patterns which so brand maori as plebs. Fostering does the user no favours for the real world.but thereby does increases chances for no or low employment and therefore a warm dry fancy new state unit.
What rubbish. Okay Michael so you're advising Stanford and you work at the Initiative. And now you're an expert on teaching languages. My wife & many friends grew up in countries with lots of languages being spoken together and are fluent in many. They mix words from different languages often in the same sentence. Thats how it is growing up in small nations like Belgium or in the Middle East where they come from. You're talking nonsense about how languages are picked up, bordering on being racist. Spare us the lecture. How many languages do you speak fluently, Michael?
English is the most difficult of all European languages to become LITERATE in, according to a research article in Scientific America . It takes at least four times longer than any other language , to reach the same level.
I have seen , myself how easily little children can pick up spoken languages if they are exposed to them. It is like magic. Writing and learning to read is quite different from speaking and does not occur naturally as evidenced by the many cultures that do not even have written work.
European languages also share much in common ,having many words with similar roots. Maori does not have those similarities and we still do not have many fluent Maori speakers to hear. Although many Maori radio stations and TV channels exist. Also Maori is 100% phonic (The early English linguists made it that way), so should not be so difficult to become literate in.
English being so difficult with fiendish spelling, requires a lot of work and being the international language , it is important it is prioritized for every child.
Sure , have little children exposed to other languages but not at the expense of downgrading English literary Instruction .
How many children , with reading difficulties have you taught to read
Robert ? Have you read the shocking results in the basics with only 4% of low decile students being at the correct standard in writing.
I am no particular fan of the Initiative ,either but the 'Reading Wars' rage on and I have seen too much misery , from illiteracy and intensive phonics taught SYSTEMATICALLY with not just any words placed into early readers is big part of the proven successful system.
Removing a few Maori words out of the curriculum is one thing, getting rid of the whole dam language and ideology will prove to be the real struggle.
If anyone has the desire to learn any language, no one is stopping you, please don't expect the education budget to pay for it. English must be learned before all others.
International languages used widely in Europe, Asia etc must be prioritized above Te reo which has zero practical value and it's enforcement on young minds is just unacceptable.
Sir Ian Taylor was quoted widely in defense of the minister. But Brooke Vv was boasting in same week about reversing English and Te Reo names in names of govt depts, so it looked like a push against Maori language.
Post a Comment