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.

Mashabell I didn't try and get my son to read before he was ready, I only ever tried to support the learning from school. His synthetic phonics tutoring happened the summer after he turned 8, so even in the Finish system he would have had a year of schooling by then.

To the other skeptics, have you ever watched someone really good teach a struggling reader using phonics? One of the conditions of ds's tutoring was that a parent came too and so learned how to support him. Watching his eyes light up as he realised that there was a code and that he could quite easily crack it was a really good experience for me. I also learned that of course those were the same rules I followed, I'd just never thought about it like that (I totally failed to help ds 'sound it out' as did dh who is otherwise an extremely capable teacher).

I can't even remember not being able to read, and I would describe my reading as being more like absorption (very fast, high comprehension, but a lot of skimming) but I certainly don't know how to say every world I come across in print through memory. I never thought that I subconsciously sounded them out using the rules I knew from 30 odd years of reading thousands of books and millions of words but I'm sure I do.

And also, tell that to the child who can no longer participate equally in other lessons, because it is assumed that everybody can read and write at 7 and this is now the medium of teaching, because otherwise, with a class of 30, its difficult to keep track of who knows what.

Of course, if the government is going to fund plenty of additional teachers so that children who 'fail' the test receive the support they need to learn to read and can also participate equally in the rest of the syllabus, brilliant. However, since children who have been diagnosed as dyslexic only get very patchy additional help as it is, I'm not holding my breath.

And if the government were going to provide this funding, couldn't it be used to enable teachers to teach phonics at a pace that suited the children in front of them in the first place, and you could save money by not having the test at all.

And if we really don't trust teachers to do this, I ask again, what is the point of school?

When children are allowed to go at their own pace it's the parents who view that as failure, or who want other children to be held back from learning something they are capable of until their children are ready for it, so that their child doesn't feel "left behind." Most parents arguing for children "learning at their own pace" actually mean holding children back who are ready for school so that everyone can start together at a later age when their child is also ready for school.

They all learn at different rates. If every DC started school at exactly the same standard of knowledge (an impossibility) they would be at very different stages within a fortnight. Why do mothers 'obsessively decode the tables system at school'. Why do they bother so much about what band of the reading scheme other children are on? Reading is not a race. My DH taught himself at 3yrs, I don't remember learning but can remember picking up a book without pictures at 6yrs and the joy of finding that I could read it. My 3 DSs all learned at a different rate and the middle one was about 8yrs. No one can tell now that one could read at 3yrs and one at 8yrs - it doesn't matter. The phonics test is not an exam - it is a diagnostic test.
Phonics definitely worked with my DS who found reading difficult. I can't understand why phonics cuts out the joy of reading, you can still share books and love hearing stories.
Finland is just sensible in starting later.

To me "learning at your own pace" means exactly that - operating in that area where you are going just beyond what you are currently capable of. However a teacher can only teach like this to a certain number of children. I am not advocating holding children back, and I would imagine that a large number of children in Finland actually read before they are 7.

Nooka
And as an adult, you don't subconsciously sound out all words u read. That's a myth. U simply register their meaning.

Perhaps your son would have had reading difficulties in other languages too, but it's unlikely.

When the spelling code is not constantly obscured, when identical graphemes always make the same sound, i.e. if 'ou' can be relied on to sound as in 'shout, out, loud', learning the code is easy.

It's the 2039 common words which don't obey the basic English spelling code which confuse many children (e.g. group, double) and ensure that all English-speaking children take far longer to learn to read and write than in languages with better spelling systems.

I apologise for pasting the graphemes with irregular spellings again, but imagine learning to read with them having just one pronunciation only (as in the first word). That's the difference between English spelling and more regular writing systems.

a: and ? apron, any, father
a-e: came ? camel
ai: wait ? said, plait
al: always ? algebra
-all: tall - shall
are: care - are
au: autumn - laugh, mauve
-ate: to deliberate - a deliberate act
ay: stays - says

cc: success - soccer
ce: centre - celtic
ch: chop ?chorus, choir, chute
cqu: acquire - lacquer 19

e: end ? English
-e: he - the
ea: mean - meant, break
ear: ear ? early, heart, bear
-ee: tree - matinee
e-e: even ? seven, fete
ei: veil - ceiling, eider, their, leisure
eigh: weight - height
eo: people - leopard, leotard
ere: here ? there, were
-et: tablet - chalet
eau: beauty ? beau

• ew: few - sew
• ey: they - monkey

ge: gem - get
gi: ginger - girl
gy: gym ? gynaecologist
ho: house - hour
i: wind ? wind down ski hi-fi

• ine: define ?engine, machine

ie: field - friend, sieve imb: limb ? climb ign: signature - sign mn: amnesia - mnemonic

ost: lost - post
-o: go - do
oa: road - broad
o-e: bone ? done, gone
-oes: toes ? does, shoes
-oll: roll - doll
omb: tombola - bomb, comb, tomb
oo: boot - foot, brooch
-ot: despot - depot
ou: sound - soup, couple
ough: bough - rough, through, trough, though
ought: bought - drought
oul: should - shoulder, mould
our: sour - four, journey
ow: how - low

qu: queen ? bouquet
s: sun ? sure
sc: scent - luscious, molusc
-se: rose - dose
ss: possible - possession
th: this - thing
-ture: picture - mature
u: cup ? push
ui: build ? fruit, ruin
wa: was ? wag
wh: what - who
wo: won - woman, women, womb
wor: word ? worn
x: box - xylophone, anxious

• y-: type - typical
• -y: daddy - apply

z: zip ? azure

And as an adult, you don't subconsciously sound out all words u read. That's a myth. U simply register their meaning.

If only you would read some of the research. Try searching on 'phonology and silent reading'

Meerymouse. You are painting a completely unrealistic picture. It's that rhetoric as a substitute for evidence again.

Sorry Masha, but your objections to the English language are frankly irrelevant as it's not going to change except probably to evolve new and more interesting words. English is used by millions if not billions of people (given that it is a very widely taken up second language) and that would make any attempts to change extremely difficult if not impossible.

I think that ds would not have struggled to read a language that was not sound based, and it will be interesting to see how he does with learning Japanese (his second language of choice in a years time). But that is still irrelevant as the language he needed to be able to read was English. And now he understands how it works he can read, so that's fine, and when many other children like him are taught properly they won't have to go through his pain, which is even better.

On another note dh is a reading supporter at our local primary and I was appalled to see the guide he was given which was entirely mixed methods (we live in Canada now). Not just because I've 'seen the light' but because it clearly made very little sense. these are children who are behind, who don't enjoy reading at all, and the advice is all about essentially helping them to guess what the words say. I can't think of any other area of learning where this woudl be acceptable.

Sorry, trying to eat breakfast and type on laptop at the same time. Merrymouse

Mashabell, your lists are getting extremely repetitive and boring. When I read, I can see ALL the letters in every word I read, I don't just look at the first two letters of every word - that would be stupid. That's why I notice spelling mistakes.

Perhaps there should be a test for anyone who wants to be a proofreader - people who can't see all the letters in the words they are reading as they read them should not apply.

Yes the 'one size doesn't fit all, mixed methods approach' doesn't get as many children reading as phonics. However, even that has a dark underbelly. I teach history A level to students who would certainly be in the 80per cent at he end of primary but they are frequently significantly limited in their progress because of weak reading skills. They find extended reading enormously daunting (even when it's interesting subject matter) as reading is an effort full process for them and their reliance on context (taught through mixed method) totally lets them down when faced with material with much that is unfamiliar in it. Not only this but because reading is effortful they have not read many books for pleasure and so struggle to use words with the precision needed to do well.
Phonics gets kids effortlessly decoding - that's what these students, despite good potential, can't do.

What is unrealistic about what I am saying? My argument is that phonics + adequate teaching resources works. Without adequate teaching resources, a new set of reading books and a test will make no difference to reading rates.

A child who doesn't get additional help until they have suffered a year or more of confusing phonics lessons is still a child who hasn't been taught anything. A child with a teacher who is able to pick up on and remediate their difficulties within the first few weeks of beginning phonics is a child who is learning something.

If we trust teachers do do this and give them resources so they can, why do we need a test? (Although I can see that tests are useful when used by a teacher as a teaching tool). If we don't trust teachers to do this, why on earth does anybody send their child to school?

ZephirineDrouhin Thu 12-Jul-12 00:17:39

Well, yes quite muddling , the shape of a word is only made up of a particular combination of letters after all.

Teachers differentiate.
I don't see any words when I read - it is like going to the cinema for me. I can however decode new words if I have to using my phonic knowledge.

I can remember teachers on here posting that can phonics occupy less than one day in teacher training. And of course it was not on training courses at all for many.

The issue of teacher competency in phonics should not be overlooked. The success rate of competent teachers using phonics is high (indeed unmatched by any other method or mixed methods). It may not look the same if the teacher is attempting phonics when not adequately prepared so to do.

Or is perhaps teaching phonically ("I'm all in favour of sounding out") but curiously unwilling to admit it, even to themselves.

The issue of teacher competency in phonics should not be overlooked

Yes. This is what frustrates me no end. Somewhere down-thread, Feenie said she was excited when she learned there may be a better way to teach reading and couldn't wait to put it into practice. Good for her, I wish she was my child's teacher.

Sadly, all I've encountered is near hysterical resistance, defensiveness and absolutely no intellectual curiosity whatsoever. Even worse, this comes from the top down starting with the County Literacy Advisers.

If they had researched it and rejected it that would be one thing, but it is so obvious they don't even 'get it'.

Throm - I think there should be more thorough training in phonics for all teachers and teaching assistants. I worked as a teaching assistant in a reception class recently and more or less had to pick up phonics along with the children. If a new approach is being brought in then it needs to be adequately resourced including regarding training.

I did also feel that there wasn't enough emphasis on sharing stories with the children from the wonderful collection of books now available for young children.

I think the balance is wrong in early years education in this country ATM - with not enough time given to supporting children's play or sharing a love of stories with the children.

As the Scandinavian countries show a good foundation for learning is created when focusing on these things in the early years, including in reception, which can be built on in more formal ways, such as the teaching of phonics, later when children are developmentally ready for this.

As far as I can work out phonics is more than sounding it out, it is teaching a child that

1. as soon as they know three letters and have the ability to hear where sounds are in a word they can start to read and write. They don't have to wait until they know every single letter sound or be bored by flashcards before they can have fun with rats and bins and cats and bums.

2. They can quickly learn enough knowledge to have a pretty good stab at enough words in the English language to be a good reader. (I know people argue about how many English words follow rules, but I think this is what a phonics proponent would argue).

I think where this falls a part a bit is that some children learn to recognise words before they have the sound skills to decode words, and some children have the sound skills to decode words a couple of years after others. The children who recognise words before they can decode, may miss out on decoding skills and other children don't learn to read before the deadline at which reading is required in order to participate in the curriculum.

That is why I think the test at the end of year 1 won't help the 20% of children who don't read unless adequate resources are provided to teach each child as an individual in the first place.

Agreed Juggling play is how children learn the rhythm and sound skills that enable them to tackle phonics.

And if adequate resources are required to teach children in the first place the test at the end of year 1 is redundant.

beezmum, don't you think your pupils' issues may be more to do with poor vocabulary and lack of sustained reading practice, rather than how they may or may not have been taught to read in KS1.

I think where this falls a part a bit is that some children learn to recognise words before they have the sound skills to decode words, and some children have the sound skills to decode words a couple of years after others. The children who recognise words before they can decode, may miss out on decoding skills and other children don't learn to read before the deadline at which reading is required in order to participate in the curriculum.

merrymouse, I 100% agree with you. Ds1 had very intensive phonics teaching in YR and continues to (despite mixed methods being introduced in Y1). He was reading v little at the end of YR because for whatever reason, his decoding skills are not there. It wasn't even about bad teaching (I believe), his brain just can't do it yet (though it is getting there). This put him very behind. With the mixed methods he has caught up somewhat, because he has a very good visual memory so he can do whole words, and he is intelligent so he can do context. I am pleased because the curriculum does require an ability to read by his age. He is still being taught phonics quite intensively and it is gradually sinking in, but if he'd been reliant on it, he would have no fluency or enjoyment or reading. And without support at home (he has had books read to him every evening since he was tiny, we do lots of stuff at home with him), he would probably be one of those 20% who fail.

Personally I think the higher percentage of kids being able to read is less to do with total focus on synthetic phonics and more a school's deep interest and commitment to reading (which since synthetic phonics is the 'latest thing' manifests itself in this way). Research is very easy to misread and in this case, I am pretty sure it is influenced by this factor. I am interested to see whether a school that has a deep commitment to teaching reading, trains its teachers well in this, and uses mixed methods, will achieve similar results.

It is also possible that a child could pass the screening test with flying colours, and still not go on to be a good reader. (after all, the test words are pretty simple) The test seems to be measuring children when they aren't very far in to their reading journey and then splitting them into those who need support and those who don't. Unless children this age are at a very high level, much higher than the test measures, they will go on needing support.

sorry, adequate resources provided to teach children in the first place rather than remediating at the end of year 1.

(Is it imagined that teachers will shout "f* me, I thought you could read!" if a child fails this test, or does a child have to wait till they fail the test before they get help?).

Actually, the government haven't really clarified what help they will provide if children don't pass the phonics test - maybe the teacher gets a slap on the wrist and is told to do better?