How bad would it be if I taught my daughter to read...

[JeanBodel]

---using whole word recognition rather than phonics?

She's 3, she loves books, she wants to read them herself. She's an autumn birth so she won't go to school for another two years. I don't think either of us can wait that long for her to start reading independently.

I've got a whole set of Peter and Jane's (yes, the very set I learnt with 30 years ago). I really don't want to spend lots of money on Jolly Phonics when I know I can teach her with the books I already own.

I just dread getting into trouble with the reception teacher. I don't mean to criticise teachers or phonics in any way. I can see how annoying it would be to have a kid in your class who's shouting out the word without segmenting it.

All advice gratefully received.

I think it's a very good idea to use a combined approach - the phonics-only method leaves a lot to be desired, and most educationalists would tell you that.

I don't intend to start a mini version of the Reading Wars here (though I may well do so) but 'most educationalists would tell you that' because mixed methods have been dominant for so many years (with a resultant drop in standards of literacy and a huge rise in the incidence of 'dyslexia') that they are stating a Ruling Theory* which has been discredited over and over again by cognitive science research but which they cling to because they have built their reputations on it and cannot admit that they were wrong.

I do not know any teacher who has taught by both methods who would drop systematic phonics instruction in favour of mixed methods as phonics instruction is effective for far more children than is mixed methods.

I have a very nice job remediating the 'failures' of mixed methods instruction at KS3. I'd rather that my job wasn't needed as not being able to read competently has a devastating effect on children; personally, in the area of self perception, educationally, in an inability to fully access the curriculum and attain their full potential, and, socially, in the limiting of their life chances. That this waste of potential and blighting of lives can be quietly ignored in defence of the teaching method which has been known to be faulty for at least 4 decades makes me extremely cross.

*Ruling Theory. A theory which has been repeated so frequently, without evidence to back it, that it becomes accepted as truth

Our desire to reach an interpretation or explanation commonly leads us to a tentative interpretation that is based on relatively hasty examination of a single example or case. Our tentative explanation, as such, is not a threat to objectivity, but if we then begin to trust it without further testing, we can be blinded to other possibilities that we ignored at first glance. Our premature explanation can become a tentative theory and then a ruling theory, and our research becomes focused on proving that ruling theory. The result is a blindness to evidence that disproves the ruling theory or supports an alternate explanation. Only if the original tentative hypothesis was by chance correct does our research lead to any meaningful contribution to knowledge.
www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_chamberlin.html

I don't understand the comment that we can't know whether or not phonics works because it's new. It's only new in this form. Teaching children to read using phonics has been standard for centuries. If anything, it's the whole-word thing that's the anomaly.

The poor schools of victorian times used pure phonics. Given the huge class sizes and social deprivation they must done something right.

What would be interesting to know is how the average reading and spelling age of eleven year old children has changed over the years.

I didn't know this was a war!

But isn't your key point 'phonics instruction is effective for far more children than is mixed methods' the one at issue - phonics-only is policy aimed across wide target groups, rather than taking into account the needs of individuals. Of course a mixed teaching method may not work for some of those individuals, and they need to have their needs recognised - but surely there should also be recognition given to the needs of other kids for whom making them wait through the whole tortuous process of letter and sound build-up before they're allowed to feel like they are, finally, reading, is profoundly detrimental to their relationship to reading in the long run.

HAve you seen the work that the Highland Literacy Project is doing in trying to widen and enrich the approach brought to literacy?

Oh, it's a war all right! It has been raging for decades, mostly in the US, but over here too, particularly now when all the 'mixed methods' pushers are squealing like mad because the government (rightly) is insisting that phonics is taught properly and they are worried that it might reveal a very bare Emperor

I'm sorry if some of you think that I am scaremongering, but I have worked with the 'failures' for 10 years and I can assure you it is not a pretty sight. A very few of them, like poor IB's dd, have very significant neurological problems which make learning to read difficult, but for most of them there would have been no problem had they been taught systematic phonics exclusively from the start. And when you teach systematic phonics there is no need for any other method as they learn everything they need to know.

I have on my desk beside me a paper written in 1995 entitled "Phonological recoding and self teaching:the sine qua non of reading acquisition". The author cites 17* pages worth of references to high quality, quantative, research in support of his conclusions. Mixed methods proponents cannot do this. For a start, they don't believe in quantative research, preferring to cite 'feelings' and 'opinions' about reading. Secondly, there is no research evidence which validates their theories. I have repeatedly asked mixed methods proponents for research evidence and they can't produce any.

Keith Stanovich, a Canadian cognitive psychologist, first started researching the 'mechanics' of reading in the 1970s. He was enthused by the 'whole word' theories of Frank Smith but his very first research project, which he thought would validate those theories actually did the complete opposite, much to his surprise. But, being a good scientist, he accepted that his hypothesis was flawed and set out to find out just what does happen in the reading process.

*i.e. learning letter/sound correspondences and decoding and blending

I am only one person so not representative, however, my school failed to teach me to read so my mum taught me by whole word recognition. My spelling has always been terrible and it turns out I did know any phonics rules. This came to light when my DD learnt to read/ had spelling tests and I couldn't see that words were being learnt by rules and couldn't help her. Now I have learnt these rules my spelling has suddenly dramatically improved though is not perfect.
My feeling would be to do phonics as well or when it is taught at school to really encourage it.

but surely there should also be recognition given to the needs of other kids for whom making them wait through the whole tortuous process of letter and sound build-up before they're allowed to feel like they are, finally, reading, is profoundly detrimental to their relationship to reading in the long run.

Are you not aware that with a good phonics programme children start reading words practically from the word go? That as they learn more letter/sound correspondences (at the rate of 3 -5 a week) their reading vocabulary increases massively as hundreds of words become available to them by the application of their phonic knowledge? That several repetitions (from 2 or 3 to many, depending on the child) of decoding and blending a word secures it in 'sight memory' so that they will always recognise it 'instantly' once it is secure?

What is profoundly detrimental to many children's relationship to reading is an imperfect knowledge of how to work out what unfamiliar words 'say' because they've never been properly taught how to do it. It is so detrimental that they just don't read at all.

The thing I don't understand about the 'no need for any other method' pitch, though, is that it doesn't take into account the (comparatively high) number of kids who do learn by a variety of methods from a variety of people - parents, grandparents, teachers, telly, working it out themselves - who have a rich and satisfying experience of reading within and outwith the school system, often before entering primary education. That happens, it really does - but what also happens a lot is that those same children have the joy of what they can already do absolutely fine taken away from them by an insistence on programmatic phonics being the only 'correct' thing to do.

What would you do, in your ideal phonics-led world, with a bright five year old (not mine!) who has been a fluent reader for a year and a half, but who hasn't been allowed at school to progress past CVC words (and not all the consonants at that) or read books appropriate to his ability? What's happening to him, right now, is that he's switching off and becoming disenchanted with school, because of a rigid adherence to a system which isn't being made flexible enough to include him or acknowledge his needs.

I quite understand that if you're teaching a group from scratch you want something that's going to work best for the greatest proportion - but in reality children have very varying experiences that mean that there really should be more attention to the fact that individual kids have individual needs, at both ends of the reading spectrum.

And I don't think you can actually disengage feelings about reading from the way you think about it - readign is a profoundly emotional thing for all of us in different ways, and I find the insistence that you can think about it as a purely quantifiable process pretty problematic.

See how many words you can make with s,a,t,p,i,n,c/k,e,h,r,m,d, all learned in the first 2 - 3 weeks of Jolly Phonics teaching, then compare the number with the number of words in bl**dy Biff & Chip 'learned' in the same period (start ORT with wordless books, don't they? hmmm..)

maizie - I may be wrong, but it sounds as if the real problem is phonics badly taught, isn't it? People say 'oh, but it didn't work for me' when perhaps what is actually meant was that it wasn't well taught, or as (erm, how do I abbreviate your name?!) buggerandarse says, it's mixed together with well-meaning conflict with other methods from family.

I don't know what's ideal though, it must be very frustrating to have a child wanting to read and to feel unsure how to teach him/her.

Sorry, keep cross posting - but MAizie, when you say

Are you not aware that with a good phonics programme children start reading words practically from the word go?

Of course! And given that that's the case, what is the problem with, in combination with acquiring the phonic rules, also letting kids learn as whole words those that are important to them - Mummy, Daddy, their name, their family's and pets' names, lorry or digger or kiss or Peppa Pig or whatever they are into and are pleased and proud to read?

What's happening to him, right now, is that he's switching off and becoming disenchanted with school, because of a rigid adherence to a system which isn't being made flexible enough to include him or acknowledge his needs

That is not the fault of the teaching method, it is a fault of the teacher.

You generally find that children who appear to have learned to read without phonics have either worked the phonics out for themselves, or they falter once they have reached the maximum memory capacity for words (about 2,000) learned as wholes. As the reading vocabulary of a skilled reader could be 30,000+ words this leaves something of a shortfall.

I have nothing against children who self teach, it is reasonably (but not very) common. What I am trying to warn against is deliberately teaching by a flawed method which could be potentially very damaging. Damage which may not show itself for a number of years.

Well, Jean, if phonics is best for 60% of children, that could be rephrased as phonics is NOT best for 40% of pupils. That means in a form of (average) 30 pupils, if you do entirely phonics, you are not doing the best method for 12 pupils..

I think saying either way is "damaging" for a child is going OTT really.

But can I say again, I'm not talking about reading without phonics, but about reading with phonics as one of a number of tactics. I honestly can't see why, so long as phonics are included and taught effectively, there should be any problem with also including any number of other skills?

That is not the fault of the teaching method, it is a fault of the teacher.

But it's a story you hear again and again! PArents are terrified of being told off for 'doing it wrong', parents deliberately delay teaching a child who is eager to learn for fear of what the teacher will say or because they're worried their child will be bored when they get to school, etc etc ad infinitum.

And when we KNOW that what makes the most difference to long term literacy and educational achievement is a supportive, book-rich, literacy-rich home and social environment, anything that makes parents less likely to model and share reading with their children is surely just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree, ohbugger, phonics, especially for the English language with all its spelling variations, is only ONE of a raft of strategies a child needs to be able to draw on. I can't think of a British educational linguist who would endorse phonics only teaching for English.

I find it hard to understand why someone use Peter and Jane Books when thre are so many lovely and better books out there. From what I remember 30 years ago Peter and Jane were outdated and sexist then. You can get some lovely decodable books now. For example the books that Julia Donaldson has written or jelly and bean

If money is tight

Some free decodable books

Jolly phonics is fanastic as are the Fun with Phonics videos. There is some lovely stuff on Youtube for learning phonics if you care to look.

What I'm interested to find out, too, is what the really long-term impact of learning methods on reading styles, practice and habits is beyond the simple markers of 'success' and 'delay'.

It'd be interesting to see how you could construct a meaningful trial - I'm sure, for instance, that my own learning process (early, whole-word) contributed to my becoming a very fast, as well as voracious reader - I think I tend to read a line of a book at once, never mind a word all at once!

What would the impact of learning in a phonics-based system have been? Would I have got to my current style anyway, or did that early whole-word stuff contribute? And if I'd learned phonics, would I now be a more thorough, methodical reader? How might reading style interact with other skills and aptitudes?

There's a very interesting parallel thread going on here, which brings out some of those adult perspectives, but I'd love to know how you could study this in a worthwhile way.

reallytired I used Peter and Jane because they are great books for learning to read. There are a mixture of key words and phonic learning words. It worked brilliantly. Julia Donaldson is as dull as ditchwater. Fashionable, but still dull.

Oh, and my kids are brilliant spellers as well. This may be down to phonics, this may be down to simple luck that they are part of the half of the family that can spell. Half can, half cannot - me and siblings all taught the same way as well.

I think the issue is that if children are taught to read by "whole words" they don't always appreciate that letters or groups of letters represent sounds, they treat the word as a "picture". Children who are going to be good readers will pick up phonics just as easily as they do whole words and in the long run will be more independent readers. Longer term, understanding the alphabetic code of one's first language makes it easier to understand that of other languages.

Of course! And given that that's the case, what is the problem with, in combination with acquiring the phonic rules, also letting kids learn as whole words those that are important to them

1. They will learn to work out those words pretty soon (unless they are very phonically complex) in the course of their phonics teaching, so what is the rush? Learning to decipher the squiggles on the page is very exciting; I honestly can't see that the average 5 y old is going to be very bothered about whether the words they are working out are 'important' to them or not (thought their mummies might be). And, if they are important, what could be more exciting than to be able to independently decipher a word like 'mummy'?

2. Learning words as 'wholes' uses a completely different mechanism in the brain and does not embed the principle of decoding and blending which is vital to effective automatic word recognition and is a skill which we use lifelong for working out unfamiliar words. It is also potentially confusing as the child doesn't know which strategy to use when faced with an unfamiliar, or imperfectly learned as a 'whole', word ( I battle with children who cannot tell the difference between 'thought', 'through' and 'though' because they have been taught them as 'wholes' and do not 'see' the differences between them. Whole word children don't read 'all through' the word, so miss the detail of the letter order which helps to identify these trickier words). It promotes uncertainty "Should I 'know' this word, or do I have to work it out?" It promotes a tendency to guess, which is much easier than sounding out and blending; and, in the current dire state of the overcrowded Primary curriculum which affords little time for teachers to 'hear readers' one to one, the guessing often goes unchecked until it is a default strategy. (I battle with the habitual 'guessers', too)

I must go and make some pumpkin soup, you will be relieved to hear...

I know you're away, but

They will learn to work out those words pretty soon (unless they are very phonically complex) in the course of their phonics teaching, so what is the rush?

Because they like it, and because it gets them excited about reading. And I think that's as or more important than acquiring rules. And words that are important to them have a wonderful boosting effect on their whole experience - Sylvia Ashton Warner's Teacher is a wonderful exploration of this.

I think what's been ignored here is the huge percentage of people - taught with whole word in the 1970s, and with 'real reading' in the 1980s- who lacked the ability to access the secondary curriculum. Some of these semi-literate adults might well have good visual memories with the ability to recognise a couple of thousand words but what about the quarter to half million plus words they would have been able to read if they were competent decoders? This happened/happens too with children of writers, journalists,editors and children who have been read to since babyhood but who have been given a mish-mash of bewildering strategies to use when'learning' to read.

The vast dyslexia industry that grew up in the 70s,80s flourished because there was little, if any, phonics taught at the time in many schools. There was a great deal of look and say, however.

How do you address the massive problems of functional illiteracy and the blighted lives of millions unless you realise that,for many, teaching phonics is the only route to literacy? Lengthy government investigations in America, Australia and the UK - not to mention French government approval - have all come to the same conclusion.
Even kids who have the ability to decode pretty effortlessly find learning a second language easier, and have the ability to spell more accurately after phonics teaching.

Teachers who lack sufficient training and confidence may cling on to their phonics readers far too long. But no-one can make children spend extended time reading these two-dimensional books at home - a fluent reader will only need to spend a few minutes with these books surely?

Taught my DS to read at 3.5-ish without using phonics. He could read fluently by the time he started school. Um, and that was all.

He is bright side of average now (Year 2) and there have been no terrible consequences of Teaching My Child To Read Early or Not Using Phonics, despite what some people will tell you