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.

But Ceclily, reading builds vocabulary - if you can decode unfamiliar words. Children who can read effortlessly, are more likely to read more - and learn more. There is a virtuous circle to be built, and it is short-sighted to rush through the foundations.

"And it is short-sighted to rush through the foundations" Throm

Absolutely - and I think those foundations are grounded in children's play, including developing their imagination and communication skills - so, a long time before thinking about phonics.

Fair enough Throm, but when you say your children can't decode, do you mean they literally can't, or that, because the words are not in their vocabulary, they are reluctant to read them for fear of getting it wrong? A bit like the poster upthread who mispronounced facsimile?

If you feel our children are required to start formal education too young, I'd be inclined to agree with you. I'd be quite happy to wait until children are older before requiring them to 'read for themselves'. But at whatever point we do teach them, I think they have a right to be taught the code.

There are so many factors to consider:
Maybe children's brains develop at different times, and just like some have teeth and hair earlier than others, some children are not physically equipped for reading until they are 6 or 7. This would be why reading is not taught until that age in Finland and other European countries. If this is the case, I don't think it would be harmful to delay actually teaching reading until then. That doesn't mean that the kids who can learn earlier will be held back (as they would obviously be encouraged to read whatever they could cope with). It just means that it wouldn't be formally taught until everyone's brain is sufficiently developed. And it would avoid little children feeling like failures and parents and teachers getting stressed.

The other thing is that if 20% children aren't learning to read at the moment, then they are the ones teachers should focus their efforts on - no need to change methods that have been successful for the lucky 80%. The government simply cannot get away from the fact that that means smaller classes and more teachers; as Merrymouse says: resources.

A little further back people were talking about ways of seeing words. I see them in colour (synaethesia) and this is tremendously helpful when I am reading. Other people see shapes, etc. A teacher needs to be able to tap into anything, absolutely anything that helps a child.

One more thing - surely it is actually very difficult indeed to use one method only, to the exclusion of all others, as a child progresses through the school? How can you be sure that other methods aren't used at home or by the children's previous or future teachers?

If phonics work for some, use them. Teachers who believe passionately in them should certainly use them. But more research still needs to be done, and imo we are chasing a dream if we think one method can ever suit everyone.

Fair enough Throm, but when you say your children can't decode, do you mean they literally can't, or that, because the words are not in their vocabulary, they are reluctant to read them for fear of getting it wrong? A bit like the poster upthread who mispronounced facsimile?

I'm not convinced that 'getting it wrong' for a child with a reasonable grasp of the alphabetic code - (whether explicitly taught, or deduced for him/herself) is such a big deal. It will normally just be a case of the pronunciation being 'off'. In my own reading experience, these words are normally close enough that I can 'self-correct' if I later hear an authoritative source saying the word 'correctly'. (e.g. 'BBC English'). I think many of these occurrences would happen in silent reading, but would hope that the children wouldn't be too embarrassed to try out loud. I'm sure other adults and teachers are sensitive and encouraging in these instances, and they can be easily corrected there and then.

Listening to 10/11 year olds reading I've witnessed two habits that worry me much more. Children who see an unfamiliar word and just freeze. They have NO CLUE AT ALL, as to how to break it down. If you ask them for the first sound they look at you as though no-one has ever asked this before. If they get the first sound, they reel of a barricade of words beginning with this while hoping one will stick. Other children will read me a sentence with perfect conviction in their voice, and I have to check whether they are looking at the same book as me. I simply do not know what to say to these children. They are not looking at all the words, they will happily tell me that a horse is a donkey!

What's all this "our children" in the comment about starting formal education too young? MY children were ready for formal education long before they started receiving any. Even people who claim that things should go at the pace of the child are just talking percentages and statistics and wanting things to go at the pace of the majority, still leaving behind those who would never be able to keep up and boring the pants off those who had to wait for others to catch up in their development.

"The other thing is that if 20% children aren't learning to read at the moment..."

Letting one in 5 children fail, and then having to provide support to such a large population strikes me as both plain wrong (for failing so many children in the first place) and a poor use of resources, when SP reliably produces fewer than 5% who struggle. There really is no reason to accept a 20% failure rate when there is a better alternative.

But EdithWeston, what if the 5% versus 20% actually is to do with the quality of the teaching of the adherents of SP? Maybe the 20% does partly relate to poor teaching, including poor teaching of phonics, lack of reading out loud and making reading seem enjoyable, and playing about with language in other ways.

ie Can you get 95% of children reading well if you teach phonics badly?

It's not as if all primary school teachers are the best role models when it comes to spelling, grammar, punctuation, expressive reading, use of a rich vocabulary, exciting lessons and sparking children's imaginations.

I just asked, Throm, because I have had adult learners who won't try an unfamiliar word for fear of embarrassment, though, if encouraged, they can get it and get it right, so I thought that teenagers might be the same. It is not about you and me. As reasonably educated people, we have the confidence to give things a try, knowing that if we have never heard the word spoken, we may pronounce it wrong.

"our children" meant English children - but then I didn't want to alienate the Scottish or Welsh kids, where I believe it's different - or overseas kids - so I used a perhaps inaccurate short-hand .

"English children", because when a child starts school is determined at a national not individual level. And yes, there are ways to start children later, but they often don't work in reality and the curriculum and peer-group marches on regardless. FWIW I feel one of my children was ready, one I believe would have benefited from waiting, and actually it was the summer born boy that was ready youngest. I think this is all a bit off-topic though.

Does informal kindergarten style education stop an early reader from reading? I don't think anybody is suggesting that a child who is interested in sounding out letters at 4 or even 3 should be stopped, just that it doesn't need to be in a formal lesson environment. There is nothing to stop a teacher exploring books and letter sounds with a small group of children while another group of children climb a tree/skip/build a whale out of cardboard boxes - except adult/child ratio.

Would it be more interesting to be sitting a desk in a class of 30 5 year olds where a third of them are misbehaving because they have no clue what is going on?

Agree, Merrymouse. Reading is not a race!

Rabbitstew, I don't want children to be bored in class, waiting for others to catch up. All children need to be given things to do at their level.

Cecily, to be fair, unless very secure in a family or peer group, I probably wouldn't risk using a word I wasn't confident about having right either. However, I was thinking about the example given by beezmum with her A Level History students being let down by their poor reading skills and inability to take on the required level of background reading (which would be done privately and silently - so no need for embarrassment).

Curriculum and peer groups march on in every country - some countries keep you down a year or two until you've got what's being taught before you can move on (no longer with your peers and unlikely ever to jump back up to join them again), or move you up to work with older children, and others try to give you extra tuition so that you can stay with your peer group, particularly since most children are not behind or ahead in everything they need to learn in school, but if you don't catch up with the extra help, keep you with your peers anyway. Either way, you know you are not effectively working with your peers and at the level of your peers any more and either way can be damaging or boosting to your self esteem. And not all forms of ability and development are considered equal in formal education - in any country. In fact, not all forms of ability are considered equal at any point in your life. My ds1's self-esteem was severely harmed as a toddler and young child by being around other children of his age, because his physical development was delayed by a connective tissue disorder - try joining in with a toddler when you can't walk, yet, or joining in in a reception classroom when your hands are too weak to use scissors properly and you legs can't keep up with the other children running in the playground (but your co-ordination is fine, so you can write and gain self esteem that way, and you can read and do maths...). Obviously, I could have kept him away from other children his age to preserve his self-esteem... and reintroduced him to society when he was 7, when he had caught up. Differences in your development are thrust in your face every day - it's how the adults, particularly your parents, deal with it that affects how you view it. Parents view extra help as failure, they view not getting 32/40 in a phonics check as a failure. It's parents who fail to see it as not having got to that level of development and a sign that their child is being written off by the education system. I really don't actually think children do need a high level of literacy to keep up in the English education system until they are about 8 years old, anyway. It would have been easier for my ds1 to join in in KS1 if he had had a high level of physical ability - his superior mathematical, reading and writing skills were entirely unnecessary.

(sorry, that should read, "parents fail to see it as not having got to that level of development and instead view it as a sign that their child is being written off by the education system").

EdithW
SP reliably produces fewer than 5% who struggle
That is what SP evangelists claim, but nobody has been able to find any objective evidence for this.

I agree that
There really is no reason to accept a 20% failure rate when there is a better alternative.
The problem is that the only way of reducing it reliably is to improve English spelling. But as this option is unacceptable to the majority of vociferous speakers of English, it will not happen, at least not any time soon and the 20% failure rate will remain.

Roughly 1 in 5 children fail to learn to read proficiently because of the following phonic inconsistencies:
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

The BBC did a tv programme about Scandinavian education, and how children were not taught formal skills in reading and writing until 7. They showed footage of what the children were doing instead, and part of what they were doing was learning phonics with actions, but without reading books.

And yet that is one of the things that people seem to be complaining about here.

We really need to learn from things they do abroad!

I'm with Solopower, I think you have explained it well, re brain development. Also, children are starting school younger these days.

Solopower - Michael Gove is learning from things they do abroad: he's picking on the education systems which are even more formulaic than ours and therefore wanting to bring back more formal instruction on grammar, punctuation, spelling, rote learning of times tables, etc. What you mean is that we need to learn from the things they do abroad which you like.

Michael Gove also thinks the British have a very low opinion of what their children's brains are capable of at particular times in their development.