Can someone explain to me the big deal with phonics?

[HowManyDucks]

Why does the UK curriculum prioritise the phonics method for reading over other approaches eg. Look-say? Particularly interested in hearing from the perspective of teachers. Do you think it is the most effective method or would you prefer to use other methods? I have always thought that phonics are a usefulness supplement, important for understanding how to say unfamiliar words. Wouldn't look-say be more effective for early readers, especially given that English isn't considered a phonetic language?

Happy to stand corrected.

Because it’s more than just sounds. Children learn about digraphs and trigraphs for instance.

They need to understand why cake isn’t pronounced cak.

Well they do use look-say for some words, but phonics breaks down the 'rules' and thus allows them to have a go at reading words they may never have seen before.

Research seems to show that early teaching of phonics results in more children being able to read to a higher standard.

not my area.

see the phonics wars in academia over the last two decades

It seems to be the most effective way of teaching the majority of children to read. It allows them to 'work out' new words which gives them confidence as well. My quibble with it is the 'one size fits all' attitude towards any method of teaching reading. Phonics doesn't work for some children, and it would help a lot if teachers could mix it up a bit. With class sizes so large, I don't think that's going to happen, or not much. However, phonics does seem to work for most, than and reading to kids a lot.

A teacher friend told me that children who would do well learning to read under other models, still do well under a phonics approach, but the phonics approach is much more accessible and accommodating of learning styles, difficulties and disabilities.

So it's an equalising approach.

Because decades of research shows phonics are better than whole word learning. Eventually we read by seeing whole words and whole sentences, but it’s much easier to learn phonics first

Look and Say ran alongside analytic phonics in the 1980s. Approximately 80% of children will learn to read that way. Synthetic phonics pushes the percentage to above 90%. It simply works for more children than previous methods.

I understand that, but if you know commonly used words such as cake, make, rake, take etc. The pattern becomes self evident. It also doesn't really help with words like (for example) 'biscuit' or 'epitome'
...

@PleaseDontFingerMyPouffe That makes a lot of sense.

I believe a blended approach is the best way. I didn't understand the almost obsessive focus on phonics over other methods that clearly do work.

I have no knowledge or experience of phonics beyond watching DD learn to read and write through them and it’s been completely amazing to see how it works. It feels very organic and intuitive and she’s loved every step of it. It’s made me wonder how I learnt to read and write under a totally different system as I don’t remember. With a sample size of one I really rate it.

That's really positive, thank you for sharing

Not every child will notice the pattern and be able to apply it if hasn’t been pointed out to them.

Having been a teacher for 35 years, I’ve seen methods for the teaching of reading come and go. By far the most successful method I’ve seen is synthetic phonics. I currently teach in a school with a high number of EAL children - most of them very quickly pick up reading skills via phonics.

I suppose the thing that bothers me most is that the early phonics books don't really make much sense. 🤷

It's really interesting to watch them learn. They can literally read most words by the end of reception by "sounding it out" it's really clever approach. Most kids seem to find it easy too

Really interesting, thank you for sharing your experience. At what age would you expect an average child, taught to read using synthetic phonics, to be a competent reader?

By look-say are you referring to ‘whole-word’ approaches? I’ve always thought that the difference between teaching phonics (or at least an alphabetic-sound approach, which most of us were taught under in the 70s/80s) and whole word approaches, must have a similar advantage to alphabetic writing systems over pictographic. You only have to learn 26 letters - or however many phonemes it is - rather than an infinite number of words, and then combine them.

I do think it gets a bit too technical when you’re teaching digraphs and trigraphs rather than magic e. Some parents probably still simplify it to magic e. TAs and teachers of course have to stick to the script at all times, of course, and never resort to practicalities, of course, even when faced with one child struggling, of course. And all do so, all the time, of course <looks angelic>.

But for complete beginners I’ve never understood the idea of whole-words at all.

There was research that found it is the most efficient way to teach the majority of children to read and literacy rates among school leavers have increased since phonics became a priority.

It works well for the majority of children and helps with spelling, but I agree some children need a more blended method and are failed by the militancy of some schools approaches to phonics.

I think most children find it easy to pick up. Before mine went to school they could sound out a lot of 3 letter words eg cat, dog, mat even frog. Then they learn to sound out the oo ee sh ow ai sounds.

I have a reception aged young (August) child. I’ve been amazed at phonics. It’s my first experience of it as I had no idea what digraphs etc were, and the school invited us to a parents evening to learn the system. We also watched a classroom lesson and I was so impressed. My DD is now reading whole books (obviously at the reception level) blending in her head, so saying the words outright. It’s been so fast paced and amazing!

The phonics approach is accessible and allows children to pick up new words by following a set of “rules”. Once children have mastered phonics, they can master reading at an early age and reach a higher standard.

I really rate phonics too. My oldest missed most of reception due to covid, and I can see the huge gaps it has left her with vs my youngest who completed a full reception year. Both naturally bright but youngests understanding of how to spell unfamiliar words is much better due to having good grounding in phonics.

I think it’s misguided to only use phonics as the main approach to the teaching of reading, although definitely many children do find success with it-however it doesn’t seem right to discourage children from using other approaches too. I would like to see more flexibility in the teaching of early reading as one approach really doesn’t fit all!

Phonics has been amazing for my son to learn to read. What has been really interesting to me is that he sees reading and writing/spelling as much more distinct skills than I did when I learnt.

Because he can sound out pretty much any word he encounters (he’s Y1), he doesn’t seem to retain the word in the same way I think I did (I was taught the very simple phonics then moved on to whole word - no digraphs etc). Whereas I learnt that c-a-k-e was always “cake”, so when I came to write cake I knew how to spell it. DS can read cake no problem but obviously then has to rote learn that it’s cake not caik or cayk or caek.

There’s actually a podcast about this. In the US they used another method and loads of kids didn’t learn to read. It’s still happening.

open.spotify.com/show/0tcUMXBFMGMe8w79MM5QCI?si=FF5S7sVaQ1aOvZL1T1vT3A