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.

@0ohLarLar I repeatedly mention that I am not against phonics because I don't need people to persuade me of its importance or value. My issue is when phonics are hailed as the superior method and it's teaching is prioritised over other reading skills. Your points do not really engage with mine.

1. Yes a phonetic language, but a complex one with a deep orthography. We absolutely do read by interpreting context, everything from pronunciation, to emphasis, to meaning. (reCORD or REcord, the heteronyms : read, tear, wind etc.)

1. Interested to see your source for this

1. It works the other way. Phonics hides poor comprehension - they can read the words fluently but do not grasp the intended meaning of the text

4.the question is what is the balance and are schools under to much pressure to nail phonics that the neglect these other important areas

1. Not sure how this is relevant. I never said that reading was about remembering words?

1. We are in agreement that spelling comes from reading a lot. Relying on phonics creates confusion when it comes to spelling, though I accept your point that there are ways to mitigate this

1. look say books focus on the 300 most common words. Level 8-12 goes up to 2000 words. I like how they use full and dramatically correct sentences from the start in relateable scenarios

1. This is a good point. I think look say is a great for early reader eg. Before reception

I feel that this is very rigid thinking. Children are not statistics.

For sure, one of my children didn't read until age 7. Not a surprise as he was also a very late talker and has some significant speech issues. It all sorted itself out by the time he was 8.

However - I also chose to wait a year to enroll him in school because I though it would only cause trouble to have him not ready to read at an age when the school was pushing it.

I think a lot of the pressure to get them reading early isn't the natural things you mention, it's external - there isn't enough understanding that not all kids are ready at the same time, and there is pressure to meet external standards.

I think they need to build a little more flexibility in for timing in that age category.

Our son is a pre-schooler and they start their phonics officially next term to prepare for reception. We were also invited to a phonics meeting for parents and it was really interesting to learn about how they teach it.

Son has always been interested in books so we started teaching him phonics ourselves a few months ago and it’s just amazing watching him read to us now :) They really do seem to pick it up very quickly!

There is a wealth of evidence that synthetic phonics is by far the best, most effective way to teach children to read. It’s as simple as that. Many primary schools that teach phonics well quickly achieve 100% literacy, giving children a huge advantage in their learning and lives.

"keep pushing with phonics until it's clear the child is a hopeless case and there must be something wrong with them - ie. it's not our fault they would have failed regardless of the method used" - this rigid thinking is EXACTLY what I am fighting against for the reason you describe. First and foremost, teachers should be encouraging a love for reading, not making children feel as though they are a failure before they've even got started. I'm sorry you had that experience.

Sold a story is an amazing podcast! I was gripped from start to finish

I know people are saying the evidence is that phonics is best but there is also evidence suggesting that it’s not, at least when used in isolation.

This was taken from the British Dyslexia Association website, referring to “The September (2921) meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Dyslexia and Specific Learning Difficulties heard from three eminent speakers”:
Their three presentations highlighted that there is substantial evidence spanning 35 years which demonstrates that up to 25% of children cannot learn to read just by learning phonics, including most children with dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties.
Children with reading difficulties benefit when a range of approaches to teaching reading are used alongside synthetic phonics. This includes other linguistic levels like onset-rime, syllable, and rhythm-based instructional approaches.

Another book I’m reading suggests waiting until 7 is not the right thing if a child is struggling, because they lose out on early intervention - I can’t find the book at the moment but will post if I can.

Other links:

https://www.dyslexia.com/davis-difference/davis-theory/when-phonics-doesnt-work/

And this quote comes from the article underneath:

Is this BDA against SSP?

No. We know that SSP is a highly developed way to teach reading, and a critically important part of the beginning reading programme, but it has its limitations, and it should not be the sole method of teaching reading. We are asking for SSP instruction to be integrated into broader reading schemes, rather than used as the only method.

https://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/news/systematic-synthetic-phonics-ssp-our-expert-panel-discusses-the-reasons-why-we-need-to-make-a-change

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y?fbclid=IwAR1uqRTXozQ5L_9ZIHtFsoMl9zGmbo8S63yum_-WroS9nYVdg7Jg7peDyvs

All evidence that suggests, not that phonics is a bad thing, or that it shouldn’t be taught, but that it is not the only way and too heavy a reliance on it does some children a major disservice.
And if our rates of reading for pleasure are declining so rapidly surely we need to look carefully at how we teach it. I cannot believe that reading for pleasure isn’t impacted by a reading system which makes the children read the same book five times even if they hate it. Surely that’s the fastest way to turn reading into a chore and put them off, however hard you try to counterbalance it with other activities?

The podcast mentioned above goes into detail about how when children are taught the whole word/contextual method first their literacy will be damaged. I’m sad I can’t remember the details but there is a very clear explanation of the science and evidence in the pod!

My DD could read from a very early age by sight. She couldn’t get her head around phonics at all. She failed all the phonics tests at school but her reading was fine. Her teacher said not to be worried about her not understanding phonics as some children just don’t learn to read that way.

It’s definitely a case of one size doesn’t fit all… so I don’t understand why the phonics method is pushed on all children, when it’s very clear that they don’t work for all.

My DD has since been diagnosed with ASD so the disabilities slant for phonics doesn’t ring true either!

Mmmm. I see where you are coming from. I have always thought of reading and comprehension as more closely intertwined. They grow together. As reading improves, comprehension depends, equally however, having an understanding of the context can improve reading skills.id even go as far as to say you can start basic comprehension skills before a child has even learnt to read a single word.

Thank you. Great post.

It’s hardly a scandal that schools teach a system that has been shown to be by far the most effective at getting children reading. Reading for pleasure and comprehension can only happen after children can read!! Teaching reading does not preclude reading to children and encouraging them to enjoy books and stories.

Which IMO is one of the main problems now in teaching reading, children don't spend enough time reading rich texts

I agree with this actually. In a lot of schools adults no longer hear individual readers and the text read in class tends to be an exerpt in a work book.

Too many schools also have subscribed to the notion that reading one same book all week builds automaticity. It doesn't (its actually a sneaky look and say ploy where the child is so familiar with the text after 5 reads they appear more fluent than they are). Reading varied material regularly achieves fluency better. Fluency is when you read a text you've never seen before with automaticity, not when you've memorised a book you've trudged through repeatedly all week.

Also, this is driven by the current political mindset of trying to reduce the spread, especially in y1 & 2, where given the opportunity, some more able readers will be ripping through roald dahl while other are still plugging away at short texts. So there's guidance that essentially tries to keep a whole class on one same reading level (utter nonsense at age 5/6/7), with books matched to the sounds taught that week. Its simultaneously not enough for the more able reader and too hard for the less.

But that is if they are taught to read using these methods exclusively. Phonics are important too.

you can start basic comprehension skills before a child has even learnt to read a single word.

You are mixing up speaking and listening, with reading. Reading requires that there be text.

I completely agree with everything you say here!

All evidence that suggests, not that phonics is a bad thing, or that it shouldn’t be taught, but that it is not the only way and too heavy a reliance on it does some children a major disservice.

No. Over 80% of children pass the phonics check in y1. We cannot teach bad habits like 3 cueing at the expense of the phonics instruction we all need eventually, to spare the feelings of a minority with dyslexia who will struggle with any method.

The decline in reading for pleasure is imho more linked to:

• availability of screens
• competition with other activities, more and more children lead very scheduled lives
• cost of books and closure of public libraries
• working parents having to use wraparound care where a wide range of books may not be available

The phonics check only tells us if children can sound out words. Not that they have strong reading skills.

Phonics is still the most effective complete way to learn to read. But the curriculum and approach needs to allow differentiation in ks1 to recognise:

• the massive range in maturity which no amount of teaching can change
• the fact that some children will intuit phonic codes without needing instruction and we must not hold these children back and deny them more interesting texts
• the fact that some children need quite a bit longer for phonics to click. I'm not against look and say type approaches here as a temporary measure (alongside continuing phonics instruction) to prevent frustration and enable a child to access text at school to give them independence in learning. This is as long as we are being honest that this is why we are doing it - and acknowledging that longer term their reading will be hindered until they master phonics, and they must do so.

The phonics check only tells us if children can sound out words. Not that they have strong reading skills.

You cannot be a strong reader unless you can fluently read unfamiliar words using phonics.

Again, it doesn’t work for everyone.

It might be the best way for most.

It’s not for everyone.

80% means 2 in every 10 children might not get it. That’s not ‘sparing the feelings of a few kids with dyslexia’.
No-one is suggesting not teaching phonics but adding in other methods where appropriate. I don’t understand why this is seen as totally unacceptable. When kids don’t get phonics they have nowhere else to go. We wouldn’t accept that in maths (80% get it so screw the ones who don’t).
Those who do get it would continue to be taught it. Those who don’t would also continue to be taught it but have other methods running alongside. Why is that such a disaster?

My DD was taught by Look and Say it worked for her elder sister but not her she just struggled so much. We moved and she changed schools were the teacher used phonics and she was reading in weeks. This was in the 1980s and that teacher changed her life.

That's completely false. Comprehension skills are explicitly taught from Reception. Even the most basic set phonics books from the schemes mentioned include comprehension activities- such as retelling the story, making predictions and retrieving key information- in the guidance notes.