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.

Did every child achieve 100% pass rate SmellOfBurntWiggle? If not the test will show where individual children need more practice so not a waste of time.

From your link there, Mrz:

'Many of the USA ills are directly related to illiteracy. Just a few statistics:

Literacy is learned. Illiteracy is passed along by parents who cannot read or write.

One child in four grows up not knowing how to read.

43% of adults at Level 1 literacy skills live in poverty compared to only 4% of those at Level 5

3 out of 4 food stamp recipients perform in the lowest 2 literacy levels

90% of welfare recipients are high school dropouts

16 to 19 year old girls at the poverty level and below, with below average skills, are 6 times more likely to have out-of-wedlock children than their reading counterparts.

Low literary costs $73 million per year in terms of direct health care costs. A recent study by Pfizer put the cost much higher.'

Most of those ills are related to the unfortunate accident (in US terms) of being born black. All of those negative social consequences, including the negative consequence of illiteracy, stem from being born black in a society where white privilege is alive and kicking. The statistics related to literacy and a brush with the law are also correlated with being black. It's not even close to being a chicken and egg conundrum. Being born black in and of itself leads to a host of negative consequences.

4th grade is age 9-10ish.

'I thought you were dismissing anecdotal evidence math?'

Yes, that's why I said 'I know it's an anecdote but ...'

"loving a story isn't helpful on it's own"

On its own was the vital point there, juggling.

And Feenie, if tests of 'reading' involve nonsense words, they are in fact testing decoding, which is to say, they are testing the phonics skills and how effectively they have been taught, and not reading..

I love phonics ... it is the start of the reading journey but it doesn't complete the journey.

I have struggled to find the method Rosen suggests is better than phonics for teaching children to read.

I don't like Miskin - she is odd!

^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?^

Well, ironically, they could have been free if various LAs and the Dfe hadn't set their faces firmly against any change to the Whole Word orthodoxy of the time.

As to bias, in my world it's what you know that matters, not who you know.

When you referred to 'hundreds of years' I thought you meant 'hundreds of years' . WW1 and WW2 don't qualify for the description. I was expecting a dissertation on mediaeval literacy rates and teaching methods, or at least Early Modern.

And contrary to Feenie's assertion that phonics is the only way to teach children to read

Where did I say it was the only way to teach it? My point has repeatedly been that other methods are successful in 80% of cases, and that that is nowhere near good enough. Try being a parent of a child confused by mixed methods, when there is no good reason for him and 95% of his classmates being able to read successfully - if his school taught phonics properly. And see how far being immersed in books since being a baby helps then btw.

One in FIVE, people. That's a hell of a gamble to take with children.

The way I see it is that having a "phonics screening test" in Y1 elevates phonics learning to a higher level than "story loving" and "reading". If we had a "story loving screening" and a "reading" screening, then perhaps it would be more balanced.

95% +

also he talks lots about reading but I haven't found anything about children's writing ... ahhh bis blog pisses me right off

Or perhaps no screening at all .

"If parents don't like this they have the option to HS"

• Or engage in a discussion about what they feel would be best for their child ?!

eg. on here !

From your link there, Mrz:

'Many of the USA ills are directly related to illiteracy. Just a few statistics:

Ah yes, America. Birthplace of Whole Word and Constructivism. Just look where it's got them.

And Feenie, if tests of 'reading' involve nonsense words, they are in fact testing decoding, which is to say, they are testing the phonics skills and how effectively they have been taught, and not reading..

I am well aware of that, math. But your point about future testing involving only decoding was silly - everyone knows that no politician has any intention of removing KS1 assessments, for example, which tests all aspects of reading. Your extrapolation was ridiculous.

"On it's own" was the vital point there, juggling.

Well, no - still don't agree with you - But that's OK !

loving stories is always good - either accompanied with reading or on it's own !

It's not enough, juggling - it really isn't.

I think insisting on phonics for all is a hell of a gamble to take with every child in Britain. Phonics has been tried before. It doesn't work for all. The idea that it can overcome the horrible home life of many unfortunate children and present them with an escape is a worthy one but tragically life is not that simple.

I will pm you with a dissertation on early modern reading and literacy if you like, with particular reference to female literacy in Ancien Regime France. I am sure I still have it somewhere. I included the example of armed forces literacy figures as an example of where figures come from, since that was what you asked for. They have been very useful for the last century.

"If parents don't like this they have the option to HS"

- Or engage in a discussion about what they feel would be best for their child ?!
eg. on here !

I'm sure that if parents would be prepared to pay the extra costs involved in simutaneously running two methods of teaching reading in all state schools we could accomodate all their opinions as to what is best for their child.

I am pretty sure that whole word methods got their start in Germany in the 1600s, actually, MaizieD, but heyho...

accommodate that is

Well I work with young children and that makes a difference to my viewpoint - but I will always think that loving stories is not only an absolutely crucial foundation for reading, but also one of the main reasons why we'd want to give children that skill.

Phonics has been tried before. It doesn't work for all.

When?

Phonics works for more children than does mixed methods. That should be a pretty decisive factor.

I am pretty sure that whole word methods got their start in Germany in the 1600s, actually, MaizieD, but heyho...

So why is it that German children are now taught with phonics? (Or are the reading research scientists telling porkies?)

phonics. dd is a sight reader and although she has an incredible bank of sight words, she would not attempt to sound out an unknow word, guessed, used the picture and initial sound or makes up a nonsense word instead.

there has been many a strangulated screech of "Sound it out!" we are finally getting there over 2 years after she started reading.