puisseguin Posted November 23, 2012 Author Share Posted November 23, 2012 The article also says that the statistics are not representative of the national picture. Which students would you expect to be taking part in a programme such as Renaissance Learning's? Hence, which students are represented in the data? Perhaps you should read the article and not just pick a word or sentence that backs up an invalid stance that you have taken. "The IT firm admits the data on the group is not nationally representative, but says it was alarmed by the results. Head teachers were also surprised by the stark nature of the results. Its findings, based on the 29,000 children using its software, suggest 15 and 16-year-olds in England have an average reading age five years lower than their actual age. This is surprising because both primary school and secondary school results have been rising year on year. Nearly nine out of 10 children in England are deemed to have met the required levels in reading at age 11. And nearly seven out of 10 GCSE grades are awarded an A* to C. But James Bell, director of professional services at Renaissance Learning, said he did not believe the data was highlighting the literacy levels of poorer readers. He said: "There may be a little bit of skewing, but there is no indication that schools are buying it as an intervention programme." He said schools tended to use the software as a whole school reading programme." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyefilms Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I was pretty shocked to hear that reading standards are so poor in UK. A recent survey of 29000 students of GCSE age found the average reading ability was that expected of pupils 5 years younger. Many students had such limited reading ability that they struggled to read the GCSE exam papers. I fear for where the education system is heading. Students spend so little time in contact with books that they struggle to read even at age 15/16. You might find most people have a reading age below their actual age. When I was teaching (not that long ago) the peak/maximum reading age was 13 years on almost all the scales we used. That's to say the average 13 year old *should* read as well as they will ever be able to. Consequently people older than 13 will have a reading age of 13 years because that's only as far as the scale goes. People read more diverse media now than books. I read a lot but most of it is on a screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puisseguin Posted November 23, 2012 Author Share Posted November 23, 2012 You might find most people have a reading age below their actual age. When I was teaching (not that long ago) the peak/maximum reading age was 13 years on almost all the scales we used. That's to say the average 13 year old *should* read as well as they will ever be able to. Consequently people older than 13 will have a reading age of 13 years because that's only as far as the scale goes. People read more diverse media now than books. I read a lot but most of it is on a screen. That is about as nonsensical a reply as I've ever seen. The average reading age of 40 years old on average is 40 whichever way you look at it. So the average reading age of 15 year olds is 15 at any given time. What the report suggests is the average reading age now at 15 has degenerated to what would have been expected at 10. It is a sad state of affairs if pupils are leaving school incapable of reading their exam papers or job aplication forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Who told you that? Or are you just telling yourself because that's what you want to believe? The one I mentioned earlier if your reading standards are up to it. If your reading standards are up to it, it was mentioned earlier... The data was based on 29,000 users of a brand of educational software. They're hardly likely to say everything is fantastic and shoot their sales department in the foot are they ? lol Do you work for a company that sells educational software? Or are you being deliberately obtuse for another reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Perhaps you should read the article and not just pick a word or sentence that backs up an invalid stance that you have taken. . My stance is perfectly valid. GCSE students who are participating in a reading scheme will be doing so because their reading skills need to improve. The company have published a survey that essentially tells us that pupils with poor reading skills have reading ages below their chronological age. The national picture is very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Perhaps you should read the article and not just pick a word or sentence that backs up an invalid stance that you have taken. "The IT firm admits the data on the group is not nationally representative, but says it was alarmed by the results. Head teachers were also surprised by the stark nature of the results. Its findings, based on the 29,000 children using its software, suggest 15 and 16-year-olds in England have an average reading age five years lower than their actual age. No, it suggests that within that sample that's the average reading age. If the sample is not representative then it suggests precisely nothing about most 15 - 16 year olds. This is surprising because both primary school and secondary school results have been rising year on year. Nearly nine out of 10 children in England are deemed to have met the required levels in reading at age 11. And nearly seven out of 10 GCSE grades are awarded an A* to C. That is quite surprising isn't it... Almost as if the study were deliberately misleading. But James Bell, director of professional services at Renaissance Learning, A company with a vested interest in selling learning software. said he did not believe the data was highlighting the literacy levels of poorer readers. He said: "There may be a little bit of skewing, but there is no indication that schools are buying it as an intervention programme." He said schools tended to use the software as a whole school reading programme." Hmmm, well, he wouldn't want to cast doubt on his own study would he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 That is about as nonsensical a reply as I've ever seen. The average reading age of 40 years old on average is 40 whichever way you look at it. So the average reading age of 15 year olds is 15 at any given time. What the report suggests is the average reading age now at 15 has degenerated to what would have been expected at 10. It is a sad state of affairs if pupils are leaving school incapable of reading their exam papers or job aplication forms. If the reading ability of a 13 and a 40 year old are identical then do you identify their reading age as 13, 40 or equal to their age? It's not nonsensical at all, but maybe your logic age is below par. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyefilms Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 That is about as nonsensical a reply as I've ever seen. The average reading age of 40 years old on average is 40 whichever way you look at it. So the average reading age of 15 year olds is 15 at any given time. What the report suggests is the average reading age now at 15 has degenerated to what would have been expected at 10. An average forty year old is no more capable of reading and handling a text than an average 39, 38, 37 year old, etc. Reading age refers to the level of text the reader is capable of handling (in different ways), not the ability the of average reader in that age group. That is why the reading age scale has a peak/maximum on nearly every single measure used in education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyefilms Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 If the reading ability of a 13 and a 40 year old are identical then do you identify their reading age as 13, 40 or equal to their age? It's not nonsensical at all, but maybe your logic age is below par. This^^^^ Their reading age would depend on the level of text they were reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puisseguin Posted November 23, 2012 Author Share Posted November 23, 2012 If your reading standards are up to it, it was mentioned earlier... Do you work for a company that sells educational software? Or are you being deliberately obtuse for another reason? I think I'll get by. I left school before the mediocrity set in. I doubt the same can be said for you. http://www.teachingtimes.com/articles/school-leavers-functionally-illiterate.htm Teaching Times 17% of school leavers 'functionally illiterate' Despite teacher and student effort over recent years, a new study from Sheffield University has found that a shocking 17% of teenagers are leaving school functionally illiterate and unable to cope with the challenges of everyday life. Although literacy in primary schools is a key focus, the emphasis can be lost in secondary schools, according to the study, which revealed that nearly one-fifth of 16 to 19-year-olds have a reading age at or below 11. This means their maths skills are limited to little more than basic arithmetic - putting the UK at a higher rate of innumeracy than many other industrialised countries. In addition, 17% of 16- to 19-year-olds are functionallly illiterate, meaning they cannot handle much more than straightforward questions and would not understand allusion or irony. Greg Brookes, professor of education at Sheffield and one of the study's authors, said school-leavers in these categories lacked the skills to deal confidently with many of the mathematical challenges of contemporary life and had a lower standard of literacy than is needed to partake fully in employment, family life, citizenship and to enjoy reading for its own sake. Maggie Snowling, professor at the Department of Psychology at the University of York, said: “Since the direct teaching of reading is not part of secondary education, it is all too easy to assume older students are sufficiently literate to access the curriculum. "However, a significant proportion of students will have difficulties in subjects that draw on higher-level reading skills, including the ability to make inferences and the use of figurative language. Given this, it is perhaps not surprising that GCSE success strongly correlates with reading skill in school leavers. "When reading ability is properly assessed in secondary schools, direct intervention can be provided to raise a child’s achievement and enhance their future career prospects.” The National Union of Teachers (NUT) said the study was proof of a "long tail in underachievement". John Bangs, the NUT's head of education, said: "There are no magic solutions, but one-to-one tuition, support for parents, family learning and a quality professional development strategy for teachers all help. The message to government is that they deconstruct what is already there at their peril." The study found teenagers' average reading scores had risen between 1948 and 1960 and remained "remarkably constant" between 1960 and 1988. Between 1997 and 2004, scores had "gently" risen and then plateaued. But they discovered little improvement in teenagers' writing between 1979 and 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.