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.

Exactly. If we're not careful, those kinds of backgrounds become excuses for a child's poor achievement.

It wasn't sneering -- clearly even Mrz proposes that there are teachers who are doing it wrong. '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.'

No doubt careful analysis of the figures emerging from the phonics check will reveal plenty.

(It seems a bit over-optimistic and premature to me to expect that lots of failure can be attributed to teachers doing it 'wrong', however. There is too much of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome in that attitude. Maybe parental involvement will be found lacking. Maybe SP when used on a wide scale will be found to have flaws. Maybe it is down to individual teachers doing a rotten job no matter what method they use... To say 'it couldn't be SP itself' sounds like hubris to me. But heyho.)

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

Statistics are not used to ignore schools which are exemplars of good practice. Statistics are used to develop the multi-faceted approaches that the numbers indicate are necessary. I think everyone would prefer to see taxpayer money spent on programmes based on actual evidence gathered from large numbers of schools' experiences and not the odd un-analysed success.

If you want other teachers to replicate your success, Feenie, then you should share what you do with policy makers, not MN. Have a researcher set up shop in your school. Get a paper published. That way, your results and methods can be peer reviewed, what you do can be properly evaluated and there will be good results for all. However, you may find your sample size doesn't lend itself to the kind of research that can actually make a difference to general practice.

I thought it was the fact that teachers had shared what they did with policy makers that had resulted in the government pushing SP onto all schools? At what point is a sample size big enough and accurate enough to justify trying it out on all schools? Is the teaching of synthetic phonics on a par with the introduction of a new, potentially dangerous, medicine? Research doesn't make any difference to general practice - changes in general practice make a difference to general practice. You can't really research something fully before you've made any changes.

'Get a paper published'

Unfortunately, I am too busy making sure our children learn to read. If anyone wanted to do such a study, I would happily cooperate. Schools which are failing to teach their children to read are coming under ever increasing scrutiny, hastened, I hope, by poor results in phonic screening checks. I am happy in the knowledge that I try to make a difference to many children's lives on a daily basis, and succeed in my aim.

Can you say the same? Or are you too busy telling people on an anonymous forum why it isn't possible?

And anyone reading MN can see that you do plenty of sneering, math.

You can't research the effects of something, that is, before you've actually done the something....

RefuseToWorry, take a look at the practice of differentiation and what it means for students' progress. Where you come from, which is linked to how you perform because disadvantaged children start school behind more affluent children and do not tend to make up the difference, means you will be assigned to the least able teachers in many cases, and you will fall even further behind

'Dividing younger pupils by ability can entrench disadvantage, study finds

OECD study finds countries that stream pupils into ability groups at an early age tend to have lower levels of achievement'

Guardian headline to article on OECD study.

Differentiation op ed by Melissa Benn.

Researchers have had donkeys years to work out that poor socio economic conditions and lack of parental involvement in education often result in poor educational outcomes for children. Yet the research hasn't changed the outcomes... Could that be because nothing has been done about any of the findings, because the potential effects of any attempts to do something about them have to be thoroughly researched before any changes are put into effect? But because hardly any changes have been put into effect, we don't have a big enough sample size to do the requisite research, so we can't actually do anything, anyway?

'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)^

There is nothing in the pretty pictures which says that disadvantaged children cannot learn to read. Which, if you can remember back that far, was your original thesis.

'And anyone reading MN can see that you do plenty of sneering, math'.

There is no need to take refuge in personal attacks.

As I said before, don't shoot the messenger just because your bubble has been poked by the findings of so many different committees and researchers.

What have committees and researchers ever done for us?

mathanxiety, I'm not denying the sad reality that the performance of many socially disadvantaged children is well below average, nor am I advocating streaming pupils by ability.

I am arguing for high expectations for all, whatever their 'disadvantages'.

As I said, MNers can read for themselves . That's not a personal attack.

My bubble is not burst. I am happy in the work that I do every day. I make a difference.

'There is nothing in the pretty pictures which says that disadvantaged children cannot learn to read. Which, if you can remember back that far, was your original thesis.'

It wasn't my original thesis. I pointed out that disadvantaged children tend not to learn to read, which is a different matter altogether.
My original thesis is that there are community and family factors involved in keeping those children from reading, and the Parliamentary Report makes it clear that only a very blinkered individual would consider the child in isolation from family and community where reading is concerned.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that SP is the only way to teach them to read, or that using SP on its own without tackling home issues will succeed. Except your anecdotes, which probably wouldn't provide enough of a sample size to produce a meaningful study.

I said poked not burst. Nothing will penetrate your particular bubble.

I'm really glad that teachers who do teach all their children to read don't have your defeatist attitude, math.

Would that be the bubble where children learn to read - whatever their background, math?

I like my bubble

How is working for a radical change in parenting style that will affect parents' confidence, children's behaviour and academic performance 'defeatist'?

How is focusing narrowly on teaching reading not another way of shrugging and letting people fester in their own misery?

How is working for a radical change in parenting style that will affect parents' confidence, children's behaviour and academic performance 'defeatist'?

Tell us how you do that, math. I'm interested.

How is focusing narrowly on teaching reading not another way of shrugging and letting people fester in their own misery?

I've lost you there, math - no idea what you are talking about. Do tell me how teaching every child to read is letting people 'fester in their own misery'?

Who is focusing narrowly on teaching reading????????????? Should teachers stop worrying about how to teach children to read until radical changes in parenting style have been achieved?

Hey, mathanxiety and Feenie, I reckon that with a few compromises Feenie's highly effective phonics teaching and math's radical parental support could complement each other very nicely. In fact I think you should both consider going into business together and change the world.

Who is focusing narrowly on teaching reading?????????????

Beats me

I have already provided links to studies where programmes have achieved exactly that, Feenie. SPOKES and one other.

A child who is able to read and enthusiastic about reading in a family where that skill is not valued is a child with a problem, and often that child has a choice to make. Hence the reading and general school performance difficulties of white working class boys, and in the case of NI, white working class protestant boys -- they choose their culture over what the school offers.

Do you think setting children up for ridicule from relatives and neighbours, complaints that they are getting above themselves, etc., is healthy for children? Character building perhaps? They are not pawns or reflections of some teacher's vision of the future. They have to go home and live 85% of their lives in their own communities. Far better to lift up the community and the child together, for both the child and for the community.

As a matter of interest, when performance measures are made comparing this country to other countries in terms of educational attainment.... is the only problem with this country's education system considered to be the performance of its bottom 20%? And if not, then what's gone wrong with the education of the other 80%? Are they being dragged down by the 20%?

Absolutely - if that's possible.

You still haven't told us how you personally work 'for a radical change in parenting style that will affect parents' confidence, children's behaviour and academic performance', math.

Do you think setting children up for ridicule from relatives and neighbours, complaints that they are getting above themselves, etc., is healthy for children?

I see. So now you are suggesting that I don't teach every child to read in case I set them up for ridicule?

Have you been drinking, Math?

Mrz for one is focusing on teaching reading in isolation from the family.

Refuse -- that is what the All Party Parliamentary Report envisages. In their wisdom, the MPS have recognised that family/emotional/school/socio-economic class issues constitute a hydra that needs multi-faceted and simultaneous attacks.