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.

And are teachers supposed to be the ones making all these attacks? Or should their main focus be on the reading bit?

Feenie, congratulations, you are the world's best teacher, and anyone who disagrees with your way of doing things is an idiot who should not dare to post on MN education threads.

'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'.
I mean, WTAF?

And as for --
'Have you been drinking, Math?'
I should be able to say this is beneath you, but sadly it is par for the course.

mathanxiety I am aware my experience is anecdotal - but it was posted in response to what seem to me to be sweeping generalisations on your part about class behaviour.I am not extrapolating from our experience to that of every child,nor am I saying that 80% of children are tutored because the methods used to teach them are not working. What I said was:"those children who are having problems when the method the school uses does not work are in the fortunate position of having parents who can intervene" That might be 5% of the 80%,less,more - I don't know.

"How is focusing narrowly on teaching reading not another way of shrugging and letting people fester in their own misery?" Focusing narrowly on reading - I don't think anyone is advocating that,but focusing on reading - yes,because reading is the gateway to so much.A poor reader will be disadvantaged accessing KS2 work,more so at secondary level,and in adult life. Work to change society,focus on reading.Both,why not?

"especially in reinforcing the academic lessons in the early years and in backing up the school's behaviour expectations." By the way,was this a little dig? It felt like it...

Math, I just replied - I said your attitude was defeatist, and you said How is working for a radical change in parenting style that will affect parents' confidence, children's behaviour and academic performance 'defeatist'?

Then I asked you to tell us about it, I was interested.

You didn't.

And then you suggested that my teaching children to read was 'setting children up for ridicule from relatives and neighbours, complaints that they are getting above themselves, etc.'

I went and wondered if you had been drinking?

I still think it's a fair assumption actually. I mean really?

It is sweeping, but sadly the figures do not lie. There is dysfunction aplenty in the top 80% but for the most part poverty does not compound it, nor cramped living conditions, nor a culture that devalues and discourages academic interest.

'"especially in reinforcing the academic lessons in the early years and in backing up the school's behaviour expectations." By the way, was this a little dig? It felt like it...'

No not a reference to anything you posted at all.
I was referring to repeated references in all the studies I have run across to parents from the bottom 20% of society sending children to school who are not socially or emotionally prepared to learn (i.e. cope with classroom rules on interpersonal behaviour, respect for property, moderating voice indoors, listening to teacher and other children). In general, the top 80% of children arrive in school ready to settle in and learn and the advantage that confers lasts them through school. That readiness to learn is something their parents and caregivers do for them at home from birth to age four.

Ok,just my paranoia then!

I note that mathanxiety ignores most of my questions in favour of repeating her/himself.

mathanxiety Fri 20-Jul-12 22:53:49

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

No math Mrz was not focusing on teaching reading in isolation from the family. If you read back you will find you were the one who introduced the idea and I was responding to your assertion that children can't learn to read without family support. Children can and do learn to read against all the odds.

As a school we ask for parental support, we provide training for parents who want to help their child (in all aspects of learning not just reading) and are always available if parents wish to discuss specific issues. What we can't do is compel parents to take us up on the offer of training or support and we can't compel them to read with their child at home.

You've previously dismissed research carried out by schools over 9 years and published by an independent phonics trainer so why do I feel that you would do the same if teachers published their results.

It's going to take another 2 or 3 years before the vast majority of schools get the hang of teaching phonics properly.

Then it'll take another 5 years before those kids take their Y6 SATs. (if they still exist)

Then we'll know if it's possible to teach 95%+ of kids to read or not.

But seeing as so many schools, with all kinds of cohorts, already do teach 95%+ of kids to read, there's every reason to expect the vast majority of schools can, and will, do so.

How do you propose to compel all parents to support their child's learning and to provide a home environment that is conducive to their future achievement math?

Rabbitstew -- The UK shows the greatest disparity of performance between top and bottom performers and while it is nice to have excellence at the top, the standards at the bottom have policy makers worried because they will be virtually unemployable, thus a burden on society. The problem is the abysmal failure of the bottom 20%.

'And are teachers supposed to be the ones making all these attacks? Or should their main focus be on the reading bit?'
I think school administrators would be the ones to figure out the best use of resources in order to achieve the results that are necessary.

'How do you propose to compel all parents to support their child's learning and to provide a home environment that is conducive to their future achievement'
Mrz -- I would like to again refer you to the SPOKES programme and the HCA programme that I linked to upthread (I think you said you had read the HCA report).

and I will ask you again how would you compel those parents who choose not to engage?

You still haven't provided evidence for your assertion that the bottom 20% share the same social/economic background

it seems not only the bottom 20% are unemployable

"Latest data shows 25% of 21-year-olds who left university with a degree in 2011 were unemployed compared with 26% of 16-year-olds with GCSEs"

www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/feb/22/graduates-unemployment-levels-school-leavers

Mathanxiety

"It is sweeping (your generalisations about class behaviour), but sadly the figures do not lie."

What figures? You still have not produced anything at all to indicate that ?the bottom 20%? of parents? or anything close to it have such poor parenting behaviour that it might cause their children to be unable to learn to read. You mentioned 120,000 ?problem families earlier? ? that only represents around 2% of families in the UK. Another report you cited referred to NEETs ? around 7% of the total teenage population.

The reports you have cited are all very slim on hard numbers. Only the All Party report divides the population of children entering school into bands by socioeconomic class, but the figures given there are averages, and do not give the standard deviation from the mean. But even if that standard deviation was quite small, the nature of the figures means that there would have to be substantial overlap between, at the very least, the adjacent groups. Without that information about overlap it is impossible to validly make the kinds of generalisations you have done from that particular table.

Not only that, but it is an axiom of science that ?correlation cannot imply causation?. Studies normally attempt to exclude confounding factors, in order to at least suggest a degree of causation, but the table in the All Party report does not begin to attempt to do that.

For example, there is another perfectly plausible explanation for higher levels of reading failure among less socially advantaged groups. We know that dyslexic tendencies are hereditary to a significant degree. Since success in our society is highly dependent on being able to read and write, you would expect to find dyslexic individuals consistently being pushed down (or failing to rise up) the socioeconomic ladder, resulting in a clustering of such individuals at the bottom end of the scale. These individuals would then disproportionately pass on their dyslexic tendencies to their offspring.

It really just isn?t valid to make such sweeping assumptions about causation, purely on the basis of what you believe to be ?ironclad correlations?, and any social scientist would tell you as much.

Mrz, the key is not to compel but to invite.

Effective avenues of recruitment include:
Midwives identifying women likely to be ineffective parents by use of various assessment tools during pre natal care period;
HVs identifying children at risk through their familiarity with the home environment.

If schools take the lead, use of questionnaires for incoming Reception classes and detailed analysis of responses can identify parents to be approached. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, Parenting Stress Index, Alabama Parenting Questionnaire are all solid, standardised assessment tools that can be tweaked to match circumstances.
Schools need to identify the specific outcome they seek to effect and ways to measure the outcome. They need access to community profiling data and can use data generated by their own school-based assessments of what the needs of families with 4 yos are in the community.
Schools need to know what gaps in existing services there are so that their programmes do not duplicate existing services. On the same tack, identifying the level of intervention they are contemplating is a must.
Next up, schools need to see if they can afford to provide intervention and how much training of staff, increase in staffing, etc., would be necessary.
Schools need to put in place means of monitoring progress.

In general it is desirable to:
Make programmes attractive and accessible -- different hours offered to make work commitments less of a problem, childcare offered for other siblings, meals, transport help, raffle drawings;
Provide less intensive follow up to reinforce good parenting practices learned, provide a pat on the back for parents progressing well, respond to problems.
Station social workers in school to interact with children and parents on a regular basis - making contact with social care less of a stigma, less of a 'them up there vs. us down here' proposition.

Using schools as the focus of a parenting improvement program (such as SPOKES) means improvements that lead directly to better school performance can be contemplated. Teachers and school administrators who are involved in the programme can be assumed to be highly motivated to help it succeed.

You seem to be missing the point math ... they've been invited and declined (not very graciously) now what?

Station social workers in school to interact with children and parents on a regular basis

sorry to ask but do you live in the real world? I can't get a social worker when there is a child protection incident because they are so over worked!

Kesstrel, look again at the All Party Parliamentary Report and if you have a problem with it, write to your MP. The nature of the format chosen means discussions of standard deviation etc., are not included, but I think you may take it as given that the compilers of the report did not pull the figures out of their arses.

I have not said correlation implies causation. The factors that go into causation tend to be concentrated in families in the bottom 20%, including the effects of multi-generational poverty on aspiration levels, on attitude to participation in the workforce, on receptiveness to the values of people who are rarely encountered except in official roles and not socially.

Big eyeroll btw at the pseudo-Darwinian idea of dyslexia concentrating at the bottom. That is a preposterous idea.

Mrz -- the majority of currently unemployed university graduates are not unemployable; some may be unemployed, but that is highly likely to be a temporary problem. They will in general find employment, whereas those leaving school with few qualifications or none will not. In a worldwide recession even university grads are going to find it difficult to get a job. But even when recovery takes place, the low qualifications cohort will find it difficult because the sort of jobs that group could traditionally rely upon have disappeared and are not coming back.

You keep chipping away, Mrz. To do otherwise is to be defeatist.

Still not really sure who the bottom 20% are. Does it include all out of work people; all people living in the bottom 20% of income; all homeless people; all people whose children have poor reading skills; all people whose parents were long term unemployed; all long term unemployed people; all people with learning disabilities; all people with addictions; all people who have ever attracted the attention of social services; all people with any form of criminal record; all people who agree or think they need extra support; all people whose children have emotional or behavioural problems; all single parents reliant on state benefits with several children; all parents reliant on state benefits with several children; all women with several children all by different fathers, none of whom are on the scene??????? Are there tick-box criteria, with automatic inclusion in the 20% if you tick a certain number of boxes, or tick one or two boxes in particular? Or are you included in the 20% if a midwife, HV, social worker, teacher, etc, thinks you ought to be? In which case, how can anyone be confident what the actual percentage is, if it's based on gut feeling about a family or attitude towards particular lifestyles? And are you to be punished if you don't fancy being included in the 20%?

Or are you only included in the 20% if your children are disruptive at school or frequently absent from school for no acceptable reason? Or are you included if you never comment in their reading diaries?

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking there, Rabbitstew. Are you concerned about who the bottom 20% is or are you suggesting that people who form policy rely on hunches, or that people who identify families needing support are unqualified to do this, or that they rely on hunches...

You might like to have a look at 'Deprivation and Education: the Evidence on Pupils in England, Foundation Stage to Key Stage 4'
Warning -- 116 pages long, 11 pages of references.

The bottom 20% refers to the lowest rung on the socio economic ladder, using a number of often interrelated circumstances as indicators, a mish mash of examples being low income, reliance on welfare, free school meal eligibility, lack of access to economic opportunity, lack of social capital arising from low or no educational qualifications, indications from tax credit data -- postal code based measures are amalgamated into the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index and the Index of Multiple Deprivation that the government uses to identify those suffering deprivation; this section of the population coincides with the lowest achieving cohort in the education system, statistically speaking. Arriving at the statistics involves averaging. Because averages are involved, the professional opinion of midwives and HVs in pinpointing those whose parenting approach, stress levels, demeanour towards their children, lack of a stimulating home environment, lack of parental attention to norms expected by schools, etc., are likely to be bringing down the average is a valuable tool, as is use of standardised questionnaires and community data.

Page 11 of the All Party Report illustrates findings from the Millennium Cohort Study using a bar graph to show how the bottom fifth (20%) of the socio economic strata performed in tests of cognitive ability compared to the middle fifth and top fifth, at ages three and five. Note that the tests were pretty accurate predictors of later performance.

Page 12 shows the average percentage scores for each of five socio economic groups in three categories; school readiness at 3, vocabulary at 5, and hyperactivity.

The bottom 20% refers to the lowest rung on the socio economic ladder

so are you suggesting that no one from a middle class or privileged background ever fails?

You keep chipping away, Mrz. To do otherwise is to be defeatist.

I think you are the one who is defeatist math, you seem to be assigning people to failure purely based on social background which is far from the reality on the ground.

"Kesstrel, look again at the All Party Parliamentary Report and if you have a problem with it, write to your MP. The nature of the format chosen means discussions of standard deviation etc., are not included, but I think you may take it as given that the compilers of the report did not pull the figures out of their arses."

None of the above counters what both MaisieD and I have both said: the figures on the report do not demonstrate what you have claimed they do.

"I have not said correlation implies causation."

?The factors that go into causation? ? sorry, but that is attributing causation. And what about this quote from earlier in the thread?

?the real problems that keep children from achieving in school, the interplay of poverty and stress and abuse and negativity in the home, have been ignored.?

"Big eyeroll btw at the pseudo-Darwinian idea of dyslexia concentrating at the bottom. That is a preposterous idea."

Fallacy of bare assertion on your part. How about an argument and maybe some evidence? ? about why it is a preposterous idea? (apart from being counter to your ideology?) (Big eyerolls don?t count, I?m afraid).

It is absolutely untrue that those on the bottom rung of the ladder can't be taught the mechanical skills of reading if they are taught using a good synthetic phonics programme without the handicap of loss of focus with the introduction of confusing approaches alongside SP.

In a school in one of the most deprived areas of the country local to me (said to be the most improved primary school in the country) synthetic phonics, a great enthusiasm for stories and story-telling throughout the school and an ethos of nurturing and caring for the children and the families of the children has seen huge improvements.

Some children, whether they are middle class or working class simply need more time to practice their basic skills - we tend to move on too fast and many (the majority?) of schools are not sufficiently well trained in how to teach the alphabetic code.