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.

Why would a small child ‘refuse to say’ these ‘nonsense’ words? Children of that age encounter unfamiliar words every day and don’t assume they are ‘nonsense’. Children’s literature is full of them. Many children won’t have encountered the word ‘rumpus’ until they read Where The Wild Things are and many words are wholly invented. Draco Malfoy, anyone? Hippogriff? Gruffalo? Aslan? We can read all those words when we first encounter them because we can sound them out - but so fast we don’t even know we are doing it.

Those early mistakes like cayk for cake seem unlikely to persist into adult life, and it is my observation that they do not persist. Exposure to written language irons out spelling errors in high-frequency, short words.

However, children who learnt to look at the prefix and the suffix and guess on context, become adults who continue with the same strategy, and it shows in their spelling of those words. Then they just take a punt on what goes in the middle. For example, air freshner instead of air freshener. The person who wrote it knew that fresher was too short, and knew there was an n in there, so he left it at that.

@HowManyDucks keeps missing the fact that whilst there are multiple ways to spell a phoneme in English, the rules for when they are used are quite fixed and these are also taught as part of phonics.

The "ake" sound when at the end of a word is nearly always spelled the same way. Children learn the pattern for words like "make", "cake", "fake", and that "ay" is generally for words which end in "ay". That's also part of phonics.

As for "graphical", if a child can spell graph, there's no reason they'd misspell graphical. English words very rarely end in "icul", in fact, I can't think of any that do. "ical" is the standard.

A ‘mixed approach’ ie memorising and guessing emphatically does not work better than phonics first, fast and only. It leads to fewer children being able to read well.

I do think some of PPs’ complaints about synthetic phonics are really about the teaching of it, rather than the approach itself, e.g. dull reading books, too much repetition of the same material, too much focus on the phonics test.

I agree @ChannelLightVessel and also with the PP who mentioned that re-reading the phonics home reader is see-say by stealth.

I also don’t see that the phonics texts are inherently more boring than early see-say readers. The Songbirds books were quite fun, especially compared to “This is Dick. This is Jane. See Dick run. Run, Dick, run.”

You're thinking of a strong decoder.

I'm talking about a child who can read, for instance, the word 'frequent' but pronounces it as if it had the meaning 'often' when actually, in the text he's tackling, it has the meaning 'visit regularly' and is pronounced differently. Could that child explain what the passage was about?

Similarly, a child who can decode unfamiliar words isn't taking any meaning from a text full of words that are unfamiliar to him. The mechanical decoding isn't the same at all as reading. A child with a wide vocabulary and who can also decode will not only discern the meaning of a passage, he is also likely to pronounce the words right through decoding plus drawing from working memory plus his familiarity with words that might be unfamiliar to others.

The best way to build a big vocabulary is by reading. Most children reading "She frequented the local cafe," are going to realise what it must mean by the context and understand the passage without difficulty. Worst case scenario, they ask an adult. If they can't decode the passage, the whole process will be laborious and they'll give up. I always respect a child who pronounces big words incorrectly- that child is reading words which they aren't hearing at home and should be applauded. It only needs someone to correct the pronunciation once and they'll never say "ep-ee-tome" or "hipe-er-bowl" again.

The thing is, the racket element is really nothing to do with phonics. It's the way schools that will be spending a lot of money on materials get caught up I programs.

There are a ton of cheap effective phonics approaches out there but so often schools end up with the most shiny expensive reading programs, or math, history, whatever. Gimmicky stuff.

Children can do significant work on comprehension and composition before they can read at all, for certain. I actually think there is a danger in trying to combine them to soon. This is most clear with writing. Many children can create an amazing and detailed story with good literary quality long before they can read, spell, or have the motor control for writing. they should be able to develop those skills without being hampered by their lack of ability to write.

And they should be able to concentrate on practicing writing skills without also having to pay attention to their composition skills. it takes a lot of effort and attention to form letters correctly when you first start.

Reading is similar. As they get older, yes, all the skills they are learning improve and often they support each other.

You make a really good point. However, the thing that shocks me is the idea that it is not until year 2/moving into key stage 2 that comprehension is not prioritised at all. I agree that having lessons that focus on specific reading/writing skills such as decoding, letter formation, etc. are necessary. But the bigger picture, the purpose of reading should not be forgotten or brushed aside. Leaving it too late is enough to put some children off reading altogether.

What makes you think comprehension is not valued until key stage 2? There is literally 2 comprehension papers for the (optional)key stage 1 assessments. Children share and talk about stories for the minute they step inside a school building.

I understand that people may feel different strategies could be used quicker for those few children that struggle with phonics but one of the first thing teachers learn when training is The Simple View of Reading which is explores reading being broken up into devising and language comprehension and how you can’t have one without the other.

Do you have experience seeing teaching reading taught in early years and key stage one? If so, it must be very different schools to the schools I have been in over the past twenty years.

I was almost directly quoting from the reading framework. The pdf. was posted earlier in the chat.

I know, I posted it. There is a whole section on language comprehension in EYFS and Key Stage 1. What are you expecting this comprehension to look like?

I suppose my concern is about what is supposed to happen - ie a balanced approach that recognises and builds different reading skills Vs what happens in practice which is often priority given to phonics (possibly due to testing pressure), teachers' lack of agency to deviate from phonics-led approaches if it's not working for a child until it's too late, and conflating strong decoding skills with strong reading ability. If as you say these aren't a problem in schools you teach in then fair enough, I'm raising a non issue. However, I do think it is the case in many primary schools, as some parents have highlighted

If that is happening, it’s a school based problem, it’s not an issue with phonics, which has been proven to be effective for most children. I think we need to be careful what it is we are criticising, the approach or the delivery, because they are solved in different ways.

I don't have a problem with phonics. I teach my DD phonics. However, understanding, meaning and enjoyment will always take priority. I think being already able to sight read common words when starting phonics can also be very helpful for young readers.

Also I don't think it is a teacher or even a school problem. I think it goes beyond that.

Despite being corrected I still want to say hipe-er-bowl. I just don't accept the proper pronunciation!

Teaching to read by sight with most children is detrimental. No one can memorize thousands of sight words. In fact in most cases, that's not even what is really happening, because for most children that is not how the brain works. As a pp said, those kids are still decoding, they have just intuited the rules.

There are some exceptions with children who need some specialist strategies. Dyslexic children sometimes - though they actually can suffer from being taught sight work methods even more than other children. But in general they will need to learn special approaches in a different setting. And some autistic kids do actually learn in a whole language way - which mirrors the way they learn language. But again - that really requires specialist teaching because the approach is going to be very different than typical children. But ultimately the goal with kids like these is still not having them memorize thousands of words!

It really seems to me that you are not really looking at the brain research around phonics. Some teachers are not so great, some schools get sucked in to scammy over-priced programs. That's true no matter what the method. But the brain research on reading is really clear, and so is the research on results.

We always taught reading mainly by phonics in Scotland long before it became a thing in England. However we've never had a rigid phonics test.
Particularly in spelling we found pupils who joined us from England found spelling trickier than ours who'd been taught the phonics method.

There are some exceptions with children who need some specialist strategies. Dyslexic children sometimes - though they actually can suffer from being taught sight work methods even more than other children. But in general they will need to learn special approaches in a different setting. And some autistic kids do actually learn in a whole language way - which mirrors the way they learn language. But again - that really requires specialist teaching because the approach is going to be very different than typical children.

How do those children access specialist teaching @TempestTost? Where is the different setting?
Is this teaching available in schools at all? Does it depend on the size ot the school?

And when do they get access to it? Many autistic children who attend mainstream start school before they’re diagnosed. Often that won’t happen for several years.
Ditto dyslexic children.

I think my (autistic, dyslexic) DC’s teachers just thought he wasn’t that bright for a long time.
While he did get extra support later on, it didn’t seemed to be at all specialised.