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.

Nobody is talking about writing off 1/5 of students.

But expecting schools to do it alone when it is abundantly clear that 4/5 of students succeed because they are being supported at home is crazy.

I'd rather get up off my arse and do something about it than patronise and waffle at people who actually do.

But that's me.

math I'm paid to teach children to read so that's what I do. If parents support that aim...fantastic. If they don't I still do what I'm paid for just my job is a little harder.

I had a look at the All PArty Parliamentary Report. Yes, lots of pretty graphs and figures, but nothing that actually said that 20% of children fail to achieve because they can't read.

There are a lot more causes than just inability to read.

I still don't know where you are getting this 20% figure from.

Shoot the messenger in other words.

You feel you are being patronised and waffled at when people outside your little charmed SP circle offer you facts to chew on that contradict your deepest beliefs about your job and its potential. Too bad.

If you have any facts please share them math

'There are a lot more causes (of school failure) than just inability to read.'

Bingo.

So why are you devoting your life to SP?

'I'm paid to teach children to read so that's what I do. If parents support that aim...fantastic. If they don't I still do what I'm paid for just my job is a little harder.'

I am sure it is.

MaizieD --
'I had a look at the All Party Parliamentary Report. Yes, lots of pretty graphs and figures, but nothing that actually said that 20% of children fail to achieve because they can't read.'
I am now actually gobsmacked.
Are you suggesting that a poor reader will be able to succeed in secondary? Get to A-levels and perhaps beyond?
A poor reader is not at greater risk of leaving school with few or no qualifications?

For you, Mrz: homepages.warwick.ac.uk/~edser/Articles/secondary.pdf

Are you not familiar with the studies mentioned here (see References section for a list) and is the difficulty students with poor literacy skills have in tackling non-fiction, technical language and specialised subject matter, producing not self evident?

'There seems therefore to be evidence from a variety of sources that secondary schools do need to give greater consideration to supporting the literacy development of their students. Students beginning their secondary school careers with an English score of Level 3 (Level 4 being the expected norm) seem to be a particular focus for concern for the present government. Such students are unlikely to be classified as having special educational needs, and thus do not receive extra levels of school support, but they will nevertheless struggle with the literacy demands of the secondary curriculum.'

Why, in your opinion, would Level 3 readers struggle with the demands of the secondary curriculum?

*Disregard 'producing' after 'subject matter,'

As I keep repeating math our pupils don't have poor literacy (even though they undoubtedly should have using your criteria of deprivation). They are starting secondary school with high level 4 and 5s ... they have all been taught to read using phonics
so what in your opinion is the factor that prevents these children from failing?

"The best primary schools in England teach virtually every child to read, regardless of the social and economic circumstances of their neighbourhoods, the ethnicity of their pupils, the language spoken at home and most special educational needs or disabilities. A sample of 12 of these schools finds that their success is based on a determination that every child will learn to read, together with a very rigorous and sequential approach to developing speaking and listening and teaching reading, writing and spelling through systematic phonics. This approach is applied with a high degree of consistency and sustained. If some schools can do this, it should be a moral imperative for all primary schools. This study shows that primary ? including infant ? schools can achieve very high standards in reading if they focus on this objective, adopt a consistent approach and make every minute of every lesson count."

www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/reading-six-how-best-schools-do-it

mathanxiety - what I don't understand is why you equate teaching SP with the expectation that schools should do it all alone? Are SP proponents going out and telling parents they no longer need to bother reading with their children, talking to their children, or getting involved in the education of their children? Or do you think the new focus is creating an even larger group of people who don't want to get involved in the process of helping their children to learn to read, because they've been scared off by the structured approach used in school? I thought most schools made it quite clear how they expect parents to help in the process? Aren't you just trying to turn one discussion into another discussion altogether? Obviously, the lack of parental engagement in education is an extremely important issue, but I don't really see why you are connecting it to a discussion on the best way of teaching the initial stages of reading in schools. And even in universally middle class schools, it seems that it still takes some children a rather long time to learn to read using mixed methods... wouldn't middle class children benefit hugely from being able to read fluently more quickly than they do, now, too? Why tag SP onto a discussion about the stubborn 20%? Has it not been shown to be beneficial for other groups, too in the first couple of years at school?

math, we have a figure of around 20% of children leaving KS2 with very poor ar non-existent reading skills. You are 'quoting' a figure of 20% of children underachieving. You are assuming that the two are intimately connected and that social disadvantage makes children unable to learn to read. This is nonsense as has been proved in many schools.

And as I keep on repeating, your anecdotes are anecdotes.

Maybe having you and your colleagues as teachers makes a difference? Have you ever thought of contacting a university and inviting someone to examine what you are doing, publish their findings? Keeping all that good practice to yourself seems selfish when 20% of your students' peers are failing so dismally that lots and lots of bright people are devoting time and effort to figuring out how to change things, and clearly, since phonics first and early has been educational policy since 2005 there must be a lot of teachers who are not doing SP properly.

So you think the conclusion of the government that there are indeed lots of schools out there not doing SP properly is wrong, then, mathanxiety? I thought it was that conclusion which prompted the phonics check?

Are you suggesting that a poor reader will be able to succeed in secondary?

No. I am saying that not all socially disadvantaged children fail to learn to read.

And, until someone does a nationwide study on the percentages of each social group who fail to learn to read you cannot draw the conclusions you are drawing.

There isn't any secret it's public knowledge ... we don't teach mixed methods

You just have to read the phonics check threads to see lots of schools are continuing to teach look at the picture and guess method.

And as I keep on repeating, your anecdotes are anecdotes.

So you do. But you are ignoring studies which are not anecdotes. These schools are exemplars of good practice; good practice which the government is trying to make universal.

It is a sad day when statistics require one to ignore the schools which are exemplars of good practice, because they are considered anomalies.

Keeping all that good practice to yourself seems selfish

How is discussing it on a national forum keeping anything to oneself?

Sneering at the people who are actually doing it, and doing it well is selfish. And weird.

When I found out about how to change things, my reaction wasn't to sneer. I wanted to find out how to replicate it.

'mathanxiety - what I don't understand is why you equate teaching SP with the expectation that schools should do it all alone? Are SP proponents going out and telling parents they no longer need to bother reading with their children, talking to their children, or getting involved in the education of their children?'

Rabbitstew, I'm not saying this. What Mrz keeps on implying when she insists her students are being taught to level 4 and 5 in the teeth of parental indifference is that parental contribution is optional. As she put it:
''I'm paid to teach children to read so that's what I do. If parents support that aim...fantastic. If they don't I still do what I'm paid for just my job is a little harder."

'And, until someone does a nationwide study on the percentages of each social group who fail to learn to read you cannot draw the conclusions you are drawing.'
It's been done to the point where it is axiomatic MaizieD. Look again at those pretty pictures I showed you earlier. (No guessing involved)

She isn't implying it's optional. She's saying that she still teaches her children to read, with or without it. That's her job.

I am sure, as do we, that mrz's school pulls out all the stops there are to get parents more involved - as do we all. But if they refuse to be, we still teach them to read. It's possible - harder, but still achievable.

What do you expect us to do, look at some research, then throw up our hands and say 'sod it, all the studies say it's impossible', so not bother? Teaching isn't like that. We roll up our sleeves and get on with it anyway - what choice do we have for those children if we don't? Certainly, no one says 'math says we can't do it, it's lunacy' and down tools.

The danger of socio-economic facts and figures (even if they are accurate) is that they often lower expectations of what a child is capable of.

I often find myself fighting against this heart-breaking acceptance of a child's poor ability because they come from, what is considered to be, a deprived background.

I agree with Feenie:
We roll up our sleeves and get on with it anyway - what choice do we have for those children if we don't?
and what choices will these children have, if we don't?