Is phonics the best way to teach kids to read? Nick Gibb and Michael Rosen debate

[ElenMumsnetBloggers]

Last month all year one children in England had to take a phonics screening check, and phonics is being rolled out across the country as the way to teach children to read. But is this too prescriptive? We asked children's author Michael Rosen and Education Minister Nick Gibb to debate phonics. Read their debate about phonics as a tool for children to learn to read here and have your say. Do you agree with Nick Gibb or Michael Rosen? Is phonics the most effective way to teach children to read? Should we use several ways of teaching reading, or concentrate on phonics? Join the debate.

I haven't read the whole thread very carefully

Imo children learn in lots of different ways and you can't use the same method for everyone. There are so many different approaches available, why stick to one?

You wouldn't perhaps have asked the 2nd question if you had indeed read the thread carefully. Quite a funny opening gambit in a thread about reading though

I'm afraid not breadandbutterfly you are confusing mixed methods with whole word/language methods.

Breadandbutterfly, there are 44 sounds, not just 26 initial letter ones.

Would love to hear from one of the phonics fans on here how they teach spelling re my bow/bow/bough sentence. I just don't get how phonics works in reverse to ensure correct spelling every time (rather than just making a reasonable guess and so getting it right some of the time)?

both my DCs learnt to read before starting school (via osmosis I think because I didn't sit down with them and teach them) yet both could confidently pick up a mrs pepperpot story, or the BFG and enjoy them

when my oldest started school they were using jolly phonics and she played along but never actually learnt them

when DD2 started school they had a much more structured phonics system in place and it created doubt in her mind -there were words that she thought she new which didn't fit phonetically and it undermined her confidence as a reader
her spelling, and that of her class mates is way below the level of my older DD and her cohorts

phonics has been used sucessfully with the children that have struggled to learn by more traditional methods and the year 6 class has just had some of the best results ever produced by the school

for me the key is using a variety of methods, see ans say, picture cues and phonics, they shouldn't be mutually exclusive

some of the earliest books have next to no text, the story is in the picture, so why when a child starts to read should they be told not to use the pictures???

mrz - well, in that case, I still agree with Michael Rosen as I believe that is what he advocates.

Still don't get how anyone could be a pure 'whole words' reader by your very narrow definition though - does anyone learn to read without learning the alphabet first?? Surely not.

feenie - yes, of course my 'phonics' introduction was very simplified. But that was my point. That one doesn't need to know all the sounds or all the rules to begin to read. I think they are better picked up in context of real words and interesting stories than just learnt as dry rules on their own.

breadandbutterfly how do you know which spelling to use?
With phonics the child is taught the spelling for each sound - they learn that in English one sound can have different spellings & in your examples and that one spelling can represent different sounds "oa" and "ou" in your examples.

I'm not sure why you think distinguishing between homophones and homographs is a different process in phonics.

Not for 20% of children, breadandbutterfly. What you 'think' doesn't really wash with them.

Michael Rosen isn't advocating whole word learning breadandbutterfly and yes lots of people learn to read without learning the alphabet first.

Picture cues are one thing, getting children to stop ignoring the words altogether in favour of making up the story from looking at the pictures is another. Likewise, memorising the story and pretending to read the words by pointing at them as you parrot is one thing, but memorising the story having persuaded your parent to read it to you and then staring into space as you "read" it for yourself, is another.

At least phonics ensures you are really LOOKING at what you are reading.

www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000488.htm

feenie - agree that for that 20% phonics may be great.

But are the other 80% best served by it? Can you point me to research which shows the relative reading abilities of say the top 20% (or 30% or 50% or whatever) taught by different methods and which categorically proves that those taught by phonics alone read as at leat as well, or preferably better, than those taught using any other method?

mrz - "Michael Rosen isn't advocating whole word learning breadandbutterfly and yes lots of people learn to read without learning the alphabet first. "

Re part 1 of that sentence - that was exactly what I jut said. o we agree on that. And I agree with him.

Re part 2 - who? I've never ever met anyone taught like that and think it would be technically impossible. Please link to anyone advocating this as a teaching method or who claims to have been taught in this way. Maybe you are right and I am wrong. But without proof I find it very unlikely.

Learning to read is not just about learning to read, as others have said. I think the govt is underestimating the importance of other factors (a child's feelings eg anxiety or panic/lack of confidence/family background/peer pressure etc) while concentrating on the mechanics of the process. These emotional and psychological factors can be responsible for some children never learning to read - it's not just the methods used by the teachers.

The govt is looking for a quick fix, but this is not something that can be solved by something simplistic.

Sorry if this has been said before.

mrz - "breadandbutterfly how do you know which spelling to use?
With phonics the child is taught the spelling for each sound - they learn that in English one sound can have different spellings & in your examples and that one spelling can represent different sounds "oa" and "ou" in your examples.

I'm not sure why you think distinguishing between homophones and homographs is a different process in phonics. "

Re your first para - but how do they know which spelling to use in which context WITHOUT memorising it? That's what I don't get. I know they are taught all possible spellings - but all possible spellings aren't right. Only one is. So how to know which one?

Re para 2 - by learning to read and remember whole words you just replicate this when spelling - you don't need to compare it to other words written the same or sounding similar. But in phonics you are taught general rules rather than relying onvisual memory. My question is - how do you know which rule is the right one in every individual case without just memrising individual words?

No I don't agree with you or with Michael Rosen (he actually keeps repeating myths about how teachers actually teach which makes most teachers laugh )

But are the other 80% best served by it? Can you point me to research which shows the relative reading abilities of say the top 20% (or 30% or 50% or whatever) taught by different methods and which categorically proves that those taught by phonics alone read as at leat as well, or preferably better, than those taught using any other method?

The problem is that you don't know which children will fall into the 20% until they are failed by the mixed methods. At which point it is very difficult to unteach the mixed methods which confused them and teach phonics exclusively to them, whilst also picking their self esteem off the floor at the same time.

Whereas I have never met the child who was failed by phonics and had to unlearn it whilst having the same esteem sorted out. SO why not teach all children the right way to begin with?

"In the simplest terms, ?whole language? is a method of teaching children to read by recognizing words as whole pieces of language. Proponents of the whole language philosophy believe that language should not be broken down into letters and combinations of letters and ?decoded.? Instead, they believe that language is a complete system of making meaning, with words functioning in relation to each other in context."

www.readinghorizons.com/blog/post/2010/09/23/What-is-the-Whole-Languagee-Approach-to-Teaching-Reading.aspx

With whole word/whole language you wouldn't "learn" the sounds (or more accurately you wouldn't be taught them)

? I was taught to read in the mid seventies with Peter and Jane, and I think a series about pirates, and flashcards, but we definitely also learnt letter sounds, magic e (Wasn't there a spelling programme with a 'magic e' character?) and ch, th etc.

We didn't learn the number of phonemes you learn in a modern phonics programme, but we certainly learnt letter sounds.

They learn that bough means a tree bough and bow is what you do at the end of a performance in exactly the same way as you would.

www.improve-education.org/id58.html

Haven't read the whole thread but my tuppence worth - having worked with young children throughout my career, including as a teacher and TA in nursery and reception classes ....

I think young children learn so much through play and should be spending more time playing, including with support from adults, and less time on phonics.

I think most children will learn to read by the time they leave primary school, but whether they will also have developed a love of stories and of reading is less certain. Many children and adults can read - but rarely do

As my DD has mild dyslexia I have appreciated all the more that children are individuals and learn to read at their own rate when they are developmentally ready for the next steps. I feel government and school targets are too focused on everyone doing things at the same age etc.

I'm very glad that both DD and DS enjoy reading (they are both at pre-teen stage)
I think finding books,stories, and authors that they want to engage with has been crucial in this.
I think enjoying stories together on TV or DVD has, for us, been quite a valuable part in the process. So, I guess I'm with Rosen - and developing a love of story is the key thing

Then you were taught phonics merrymouse because that is how phonics was taught
Peter & Jane was the Ladybird Keyword sheme

'She confuses "what" and "wot".
I really like phonics, but with real words only please.
Oh and FYI - I'm in the north, where "u" is pronounced" "oo"'

In Ireland the 'wh' sound and the 'w' sound would be different...

MaizieD -- 'none of them has made a 'fortune' from their programmes.'
So they are free?
Has it occurred to you that you may be a bit biased as to the merits of the programmes due to knowing several of their founders?

I do actually have a pretty good idea of how historians have arrived at literacy levels over the course of history, strangely enough.

To give one example, armies have kept records of the literacy levels of recruits since at least WW1. In Britain, the US, France and Germany, functional literacy levels have been recorded periodically using various tests of males old enough for service (and latterly females). The figures produced have provided a good snapshot of literacy at different points of history and have revealed that there is usually a solid percentage that remains unmoved by all efforts to teach reading.

Army exams have also produced data on height and weight and health, including information on topics such as bedwetting, stds, etc.

Methods of measuring literacy have varied in their sophistication over the years. Governments have been interested in literacy primarily because literacy is associated with well developed economies and military strength and have used various surveys to build a picture. The 1944 Education Act arose partly from shock at the literacy levels of WW2 recruits into the British armed forces.

Historians can use all sorts of written records to estimate literacy levels, including signatures or Xs marked on legal documents including land and rent records and rolls, electoral rolls, baptismal registers, marriage registers, armed forces papers -- there is a plethora of sources even from the early modern period (1500s on). The figures are an estimate at best.

Now that phonics is the new state educational religion, it is highly likely that tests will test not reading but attainment of the phonics skills, which may be confusing to historians of the future.