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.

X'x xxxxxxx x xxxx xx xxxxxxx.

Someone who thinks that being able to read "Once upon a time there were three little pigs" when it is written out as a lot of xxx is a sign of being a good reader who understands what they read from the context is mistaken.

That wasn't the reason the Head started her talk with it.

Xxxxx xxx xxxx x xxxxxxx xxxxxx Xxxxx,
xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxx,
Xxxx xxx xxx xx xxx xxxxxx,
xxxx xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx,
xxx x 'xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxx.

I know - the Head thought it would show how difficult reading was for beginner readers. You, however, used it for other reasons - namely to make a point about how you think you read.

And then it got tied up with discussions about getting meaning from sources other than the words themselves and how that relates to reading...

Can I just ask did the head use asterisks or are you just using them because it's difficult to add a range of symbols on MN?

and crosses

I used it the way the Head used it-I merely explained that I just got it. I got it because I read without seeing words-I didn't read like that at 5 yrs.

The Head used asterisks-I couldn't on MN.

I understand that exotic I was just curious.

I don't think it was a particularly good way to start the talk.

I've seen Arabic and the Cyrillic alphabet used to illustrate how difficult it is for beginner readers and writers which is better IMHO

'Maths Anxiety, as far as I can make out, you seem to be arguing that all of the 20%+ of children who can?t read are so disadvantaged by their lack of vocabulary knowledge that only 1) a social revolution can help them and 2) in the meantime we should teach them to use whole language predictive strategies because that will help them guess the meaning.'

No, that is not what I have said.

I am arguing that there is more than mere decoding to reading successfully throughout a school career that takes students to A levels and beyond. Decoding ability is extremely important when learning to read. It can be taught very effectively using SP and also using a combination of SP and a carefully chosen sequence of sight words. (Not all children will learn using those methods however). Once decoding is at the point of fluency, the children whose reading will take them to A levels and beyond are those with a large language 'bank' and those with parents who are engaged in the education system and make school and homework and study a priority, parents who read themselves and model reading, and whose culture emphasises education, and places a high value on reading as a leisure pursuit.

The alternatives to SP are not necessarily the total whole language or the analytic phonics approach.

Social-emotional programmes involving confidence building for children and determined efforts to engage parents have proved their value. While we wait for such programmes to be used on a wide scale (note, not a revolution, just a sensible approach that recognise the key role of the home environment/culture) to engage the traditional underachievers in the education process, teaching reading in any way that ensures the best short term results is of course the way to go, but placing all of our hopes on SP on its own, in a vacuum so to speak, is crazy.

You seem to be assuming that phonics is taught in a vacuum ... it isn't.

It goes back to my original point that all DCs are different-they can all learn phonics but they bring different things to the lesson.

I think too many people are taking Michael Rosen seriously when he really hasn't got a clue what is involved in teaching phonics in the early years and has refused to observe schools that teach phonics effectively.

It is taught in a vacuum if the children being taught are not involved in an intensive social-emotional programme that results in behaviour modification for them and their families engaging with school and supporting and encouraging their children's progress. Only the very exceptional child will succeed in school without backing from home.

Then I know lots of exceptional children math... schools can't compel parents to engage so they compensate.

SPOKES programme again.

Helping Children Achieve study found among other conclusions in the interim report:
'If confirmed by the full results at the end of the trial, these findings will have major implications for reducing social disadvantage. In particular, the parent-led reading support for children is a world first and offers the opportunity to lift children in need out of the consequences of poverty.'

Engagement is both possible and preferable to schools doing it alone.

It is much harder for the child, but lots can succeed despite home- and do.

All UK schools try to engage the parents.

They do everything they can given their resources (including knowledge)

But children can and do achieve regardless of parental engagement.

And it is a terrible school that blames lack of progress on lack of parental engagement.

I'd be interested to know how many schools don't try to get parents engaged and involved in their children's education and how much of an overlap there is between poor teaching within the school and poor engagement with parents.

MathsAnxiety

I?m sure no one doubts that school outcomes can be improved by helping parents learn better parenting skills, and that this would be a good idea.

But the study you?ve linked to really doesn't prove a great deal. It was done 13 years ago, so almost certainly didn?t involve schools using phonics methods.
(I looked at it using Google Scholar.) Essentially, what it appears to show is that parents who engaged more positively with their ?difficult? 6 year olds made them more successful at memorising the high-frequency ?sight words? they would have been expected to learn at school at that period. (These sight words would have been a substantial part of what the BAS single-word-list reading test used in the study would have been measuring, because such tests are ?normed? against what words ?average? children can read). .

In contrast, consider the children in the Clackmannanshire study of synthetic phonics, who also came from a disadvantaged population. Overall, these kids tested 15% higher than the kids in this London study after only 16 weeks (as opposed to 28 for the London kids) ? no home improvement intervention required.

As the school where I teach is in an area of deprivation so under the governments Changes for Children policy which required LEAs to build children's centres in the most deprived areas one was built onto the school to provide support children, families and the community. Under the remit local authorities were required to develop children?s centres offering, at a minimum:

? full daycare integrated with early years education;
? family support and parental outreach;
? child and family health services;
? access to Children?s Information Service;
? access to employment and training providers

It is now closed most of the time ... the family support workers made redundant, the parental outreach workers likewise, the health services have been moved 20 miles away to a building that is impossible to access if you don't own a car, children's information services and training providers scrapped. Does it matter?
Not really because not one of our parents actually used it when it was open ...

we joke that we need to lay on pie & peas & wine to get parents to attend PE so what do you suggest math

The Clackmannanshire study also used the BAS test. (Before anyone claims that different tests may produce different results)