Are you seriously saying that she had no other choice than to benefit financially?
Are you seriously suggesting that she had no right to take her programme to the market place? That someone who develops and sells a good product isn't supposed to benefit financially from it? What would you suggest that she should have done? Gone away like a good girl and forgotten all about it?
That she has been forced into charging £3000+ for schools because no one else was able to do it?
As far as I can see her rates for training are about the same as for any other independent synthetic phonics training. There are quite a few people doing training, you know; either independently or attached to a particular programme. It's just that you don't hear about them as they are not the focus of a smear campaign.
I'm intrigued as to where the £3,000 figure came from; it sounds suspiciously like the limit for the Matched Funding scheme which ran for a couple of years. In fact, it turns out that very little of it was spent by schools on training. Most schools spent it on resources. And before you say anything, her programme was acquired by Oxford University Press about 10 years ago, profits from the resources go to them. As they have a huge marketing operation and a massive presence in schools it isn't really surprising that the programme is one of the top sellers in the SP programme market.
There is zealotry and there is blind ignorance.
If you are implying that I am ignorant you are way off the mark. The number of factual errors you have come up with in this exchange seem to indicate that the boot is on the other foot.
Her success has actually been questioned by a lot of experts.
Really? Are you suggesting that schools who use her programme with excellent results are fiddling the figures? Perhaps you'd like to give me some examples.
^ I am much more interested in how we enable children to use language and be creative.^
That's fine. But I will say that it's pretty difficult to be creative with language if you can't read or write it. Research (which I can cite if you wish) has shown that the richest source of vocabulary is the written media; it must be hard to be creative with a restricted vocabulary.
And the argument that some people succeed who have poor reading/writing skills takes no account of the thousands who don't. For every Richard Branson there are hundreds of illiterates in our prisons. Figures published a few years ago suggested that there were some 9 million illiterate adults in Britain. I wonder how many of them have wonderful fulfilling creative jobs and don't mind being unable to read books, magazines and newspapers. Or food labels, or instructions for taking medicine, or the TV listings, or their children's school reports, or being unable to read books to their children and grandchildren?
Sad really when there is such a simple and effective way of teaching most children to read and people do their damnedest to prevent it being used.
Anya Wed 04-May-16 08:19:11
MaizieD Mon 16-May-16 14:34:03
trisher Mon 16-May-16 15:54:27
daphnedill Mon 16-May-16 18:45:50
daphnedill Mon 16-May-16 18:46:29
vampirequeen Mon 16-May-16 21:10:17
daphnedill Mon 16-May-16 21:43:09
Mamie Tue 17-May-16 05:50:01
Anya Tue 17-May-16 07:09:52
trisher Tue 17-May-16 10:28:08
Luckygirl Tue 17-May-16 11:00:05
daphnedill Tue 17-May-16 15:47:24
Mamie Tue 17-May-16 16:03:34
Mamie Tue 17-May-16 16:52:17
trisher Tue 17-May-16 18:09:47
daphnedill Tue 17-May-16 18:39:15
Mamie Tue 17-May-16 18:45:46
trisher Tue 17-May-16 19:25:11
daphnedill Tue 17-May-16 20:40:30
Mamie Wed 18-May-16 09:26:25
daphnedill Wed 18-May-16 15:33:49
Mamie Wed 18-May-16 16:25:07
daphnedill Wed 18-May-16 19:36:12