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.

Our children keep asking when they are going to do the "special job" again they enjoyed it because it was new and they could show off to me

I never argued that phonics shouldn't be taught to young children. My argument is that there is no point in teaching phonics until a child can distinguish and order letter sounds - that is half the point of phonics as it is taught today. Some children cannot do this at 4 or 5. They need to develop pre-reading skills. If that means the class are all doing different activities, then great. As I said, teaching should be fitted to the child, not the child to the teaching and children should learn at a pace that is correct for them. This applies to a gifted child as much as to any other child.

I think the test at the end of year 1 is probably harmless but should be largely pointless, because if they school/teacher don't have a good grasp of a child's phonic progress by this stage, to put it bluntly, they must be a bit rubbish. If the test is to gain funding for additional teaching resources for the school (which I doubt), wouldn't it be better just to put those resources in place in the beginning?

I therefore think that the test will make no difference to reading rates.

Maybe its supposed to be like a kind of speed test to find those rogue schools that are wilfully using whole word techniques? What is going to happen at theses schools - they send in the phonics squad? Not if the government don't want to spend any money they won't.

The fact that not all teachers believe that some children need extra help. No doubt there will be a few surprised faces...

Ofsted will be very interested - they have a very pro-phonics reading agenda. I hope they will be especially interested in nice middle class schools who don't teach phonics properly and rest in their leafy lane laurels like my ds's.

ON

Infact, I bet loads of schools will just carry on as normal:

"Well Mrs Smith, Geraldine didn't score very well in this mandatory phonics test, but we like to teach a variety of reading techniques here...".

Yep, there already are, math.

Merrymouse, I agree. What you end up with in a class where phonics is started too early is differentiation, grouping that is visible to all, that sends a message to all the children and not just to their parents that some children are better than others. Starting too early accomplishes the task of sorting into the haves and have nots, which is the main focus of the British education system.

And I agree with your points about the tests.

The task of sorting the haves from have nots is the main focus of many British parents - that is not the fault of the education system. Four year old children don't tend to make a big song and dance about which phonic group they are in. And too early for one child is a completely different thing from too early for another. Giving extra attention to a child who is behind in their phonics doesn't strike me as holding that child back and turning it into a have not.

In fact, the main interests of most young children appear to be who is the funniest child, the kindest child, the fastest runner, has the nicest hair, the best pair of glasses, the coolest toys... not who is doing the trickiest phonics.

Most children aren't interested in what other people can do and it's very easy to teach phonics to mixed ability groups /whole class so no one is aware until parents get into comparing book bands.

Cecily P, throm answered for me up thread. I do agree with you that more reading would have helped but the children don't read because it is effortful - it's a vicious cycle.
To expand on my point about the 80 per cent stat hiding more weak reading. My school is alittle bit selective but not highly academic but virtually all our kids would have got level 4 or above at the end of KS2. Screening checks on entry show there are masses of weak readers and sometimes it seems like half the exam hall is made up of those getting extra time in their exams because of reading problems. Many children that are viewed as literate find decoding effortful and as those taught with phonics tend to not have this problem I tend to think mixed methods teaching hurts many more than the 20 per cent statistic. These children don't get into the habit of reading in KS2 as it is hard work. They then don't read enough by age 16 to improve their reading skills and expand the vocabulary. They get by but remain weak readers and are seriously hindered from 16 plus. They are not a small number of students and they eat drastically into the 80 per cent success statistic.

You're kidding mrz. My YR was very clear about who was in what group. Partly because it was rubbed in by other kids. Maybe it was just his class who were that aware but they certainly were/ are. As for mixed ability teaching, it would be great, but haven't seen it. Phonics grouping were done across the year (3 classes) and even across years ("Wow, he goes to Y1 phonics").

Rabbitstew, I have never been competitive about my child, but I have been very concerned about his self esteem and frequent comments that he's rubbish at everything despite loads of encouragement at home.

I know one could argue that I can't prove why those children are still weak - but I can say with some certainty tht the 80 per cent figure hides plenty of weak reading.
Also ks2 teachers on this thread talk about reading with kids that will get level 4 but struggle with new words etc. I would say that I meet those children at A level still weak as readers, they don't get better because thy don't like reading. Thy don't like reading because it is effortful. It is effortful because they are heavily reliant on context and never learnt to effortlessly decode...

My dss were never remotely clear on who was in what group for anything at the age of 4, 5 or 6. Ds1 doesn't appear to have twigged that some groups were set by ability until KS2 and I never asked what ability groups my dss were in, either. If some parents in a child's class are interested and asking about it and commenting on it, I'm sure that gets passed on by the children, but I'm really not convinced it originates from the children or the teachers - hence my comment that that sort of thing is not the fault of the education system, it's the fault of the parents.

Well I don't have groups and they all do the same work so I'm not sure how they will work it out MerryMarigold unless they happen to have access to my files.

Is the system of 'Synthetic Phonics' as championed by the present Government Education dept. taught as a whole class lesson for 20 minutes per day or done some other way? Does anyone know? I have been out of teaching for a few years.

I was involved in a pilot for introducing a daily phonics lesson in 2004/5 but this included, along side the class session, many group and individual games activities, then called 'Playing with Sounds' The children's phonic knowledge increased that year but other things suffered as a result of the prescriptive focus for "all '' children at 4 plus. Some children find just sitting on the carpet or on a chair, for that length of time, difficult at barely 4 years old, children with English as a second language struggled for different reasons, others again loved the formal sessions and could cope with the pace of introduction.
I still feel that this debate has two strong and needlessly opposing camps and yet we are all interested in the learning outcomes of our children.

Phonics is an essential part of the teaching of reading but is not the only means to learn to be a reader. It has always been taught.

I was surprised to see that someone thought 'guessing' should not be encouraged as part of reading, informed intelligent guesses using context, sentence structure, speech patterns as well picture clues are very much part of being a reader.
I have been encouraged by the level of debate and the interest shown by mums on this subject.

It depends on the school nymac.

I think most people now accept that teaching children to guess is a very poor strategy and the whole context argument is very weak when you consider that it isn't possible to guess the most frequently used function words.

" Most people now accept" "a very poor strategy" what a crafty conflation of views mrz. I wouldn't begin to assume I knew what "most people" thought about anything.
It is, however, possible to 'have a go' at a word using all sorts of other cues, such as picture, context, experience and sentence construction.

Which frequently used function words?

* took function words * speech, * hard figure * * going on.

Can you guess the missing words from context nymac ?

Would a picture help you read it?

nymac Thu 12-Jul-12 20:25:11

It is, however, possible to 'have a go' at a word using all sorts of other cues, such as picture, context, experience and sentence construction.

Yes I agree nymac - I think the other reading cues, crucially context, but also sentence structure and pictures, are really important to the developing reader. I feel they have been side-lined a bit by the emphasis on phonics. I think when I learnt to read myself circa 1970 that I relied heavily on all of these, and recognising whole words, and only to a much lesser extent on phonics. Your own experience is bound to be influential on your views I think.

This is fun! If I took the function words out of my speech, it would be hard to figure out exactly what was going on?????

Also, the thing is, it's important to read words in context and guess ahead as you read, rather than just de-coding each word, in order to read for meaning and with fluency.

nymac, my own personal view about the reason why the camps are in such opposition is that each feels that it has to annihilate the other in order to be vindicated. A thing we often hear is that mixed methods are anathema. That doesn't seem to be restricted to a system of Mixed Methods as a discipline but appears to apply to anyone who isn't a disciple of either view. In order to exist, it appears as though one has to subscribe to Viewpoint A or Viewpoint B. Ordinary people who just want their children to read don't exist. And that's a sad indictment on both camps. (And it's very bad for all non-indoctrinated parents.)