I am writing regarding Jim Young’s letter (Hard work done over the years is paying off, September 24).
He points out the primary schools’ Reading Campaign success of all the combined entities involved, then goes on to hope that the funding and the campaign will continue for many years to come but fears that his hopes may be misplaced.
Why do people like Mr Young not ask themselves why they prefer ‘cure’ and not ‘prevention’?
If the Reading Campaign continues it will signify that inadequate initial classroom teaching methods are continuing to be deployed, thus providing ‘fodder’ for future ‘cure’ campaigns. If kids are taught properly first time round (prevention) they would not require a Reading Campaign, or other initiatives, with their costs.
I experienced approx. 1,600 hours of direct literacy teaching by age seven. Can anyone out there say how many hours of direct literacy teaching kids get in school between ages five and seven nowadays?
S. NICHOLSON
Campbell Road
Oxford
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here