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.

Mathanxiety

"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"

Hmm, you seem to have changed your tune substantially. Throughout this thread you have repeatedly claimed that there is no point in trying to teach this same 20% to read (unless family intervention is also included), because they:

are living in ?chaotic families?, with ?a horrible home life?, are ?unable to cope with classroom rules on interpersonal behaviour? or ?respect for property?, receive ?little or no interest on the part of parents?, experience ?stress and abuse and negativity in the home? where ?physical and sexual abuse? are ?seen as normal?!

Please don't misunderstand me. There is good evidence that these factors do apply to around 2% of families. But not to the 20% that you have been claiming, It is that claim that I and others on this thread have objected to.

I also have to add to the conversation about children living in extremely disadvantaged circumstances. Many years ago, in the 70s I taught in an ILEA EPA school. These were schools designated as educational priority, later rebadged social priority. It wouldn't be hard to imagine the inner city environment back then, and these EPA schools served communities that had the most severe deprivations. My school was in Lambeth, about a mile or less from the palace of Westminster, even closer to Lambeth Palace! The ILEA was very generous in the resources allocated, ample for consumables, but also, with staffing. For example, I worked in a team with 4 teachers to 3 classes, class sizes 33, and each class had some access to helpers.

We routinely taught all the children to read in the infant school with a school-designed programme. I was astonished to find, when I returned to teaching in the 21st century, in a leafy green, that not all children did in fact learn to read, but then of course, the mixed methods that had penetrated the systems in UK, USA, Australia, NZ, accounted for that.

I agree, allchildrenreading - to claim that 20% of families in the UK are that dysfunctional is just hard to believe. I also note that some of the literature mathanxiety posts for us to read is talking about an awful lot more than those at the bottom of the spectrum - talking, for example, about the number of high court judges, top medics, etc, from private schools, indicating that the authors believe there is a problem in this country which spreads far beyond the bottom 20% and which hugely disadvantages 90% of the population... I also note from that it is likely to be the case that those doing the research, judging what the problem is and how to deal with it are more likely than not to be from the 7% who were privately educated and one cannot help but wonder whether this skews the perspective somewhat and affects which conclusions those making the decisions (mainly privately educated) are willing to draw and which ones tend to be discounted. One also cannot help thinking that MPs, journalists, FTSE 100 chief execs. etc have set an appallingly bad example of standards of behaviour in the recent past, which sets private schooling in an exceptionally bad light when it comes to any assessment of it beyond creating an impressive facade, given that such a large number of these people were educated in that system and must therefore seriously affect the ethos..... or is that confusing causation and correlation?..... I do know it isn't as simple as 20% of families messing things up and it being too late to teach their children to read effectively by the time they get to school... In fact your own literature goes on about the difference that education can make, yet you determinedly argue against anyone then attempting to effect any of the changes that might make a difference at that level, without explaining why you don't think synthetic phonics will in particular help the 20% you keep banging on about.

Malaleuca - You make a good point, along the same lines that a number of other people have made here.

I think Mathsanxiety has misunderstood the frequently-made point about anecdotal evidence being unacceptable. It is quite true that you can't use anecdotal evidence to prove an assertion. However, you can use it to disprove a sweeping generalisation; that is, to show that it doesn't apply in all cases. This is often important, in part because it opens your mind to the possibility that there may be more "exceptions" than you had initially supposed; and it also raises the question of what it is about the exceptional cases that makes them exceptions, thus obliging you to interrogate your prior assumptions more carefully.

Sorry, it was kesstrel I was agreeing with... (and allchildrenreading, of course!...).

Kesstrel I respectfully suggest that you learn to read before paraphrasing other people's posts.

'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.'
If that is addressed to me, I claimed nothing of the sort.
If not, carry on...

Rabbitstew, nothing was mentioned in that long link I posted about any particular method of teaching children to read. No claim was made for the superiority of one method over another. That paper addressed systemic issues related to school failure on the bottom stratum of society, one of which was very poor quality teaching across the board (if you'll pardon the pun) in schools where fsm children tend to go in large numbers. No doubt the phonics check will highlight that.

There was also ample evidence of fsm children failing to keep up with non fsm children as they progressed through school, and in fact losing their momentum and falling behind.

Those two phenomena alone make it highly unlikely that SP will work its much-touted magic.

'it is quite true that you can't use anecdotal evidence to prove an assertion. However, you can use it to disprove a sweeping generalisation; that is, to show that it doesn't apply in all cases.'
Am gobsmacked.
Of course generalistions do not apply in all cases. That is what is understood by the phrase 'in general'.
When you have enough of an accretion of evidence to suggest otherwise, then what you can do is make another generalisation. In the meantime, the original generalisation stands.
The individual human factor is what schemes to entice parents to retrain and change their attitude to school count on.

There is also evidence that girls who have FSM do better than boys ... so it skews the generalisation that the bottom 20% are destined to failure. There are many reasons why one child succeeds when another fails and you are narrowly focusing on one.

They do better than fsm boys but they are still behind non fsm children of both sexes.

Some high performing non fsm children tend to perform better than others - there are some notably successful ethnic groups.

Plus there are individual ethnic groups where fsm children do much worse than others, even with girls doing better than boys -- the rule still stands.

I am not focusing narrowly. FSM is shorthand for a wide spectrum of deprivation.

They do better than fsm boys but they are still behind non fsm children of both sexes.

Now where do you get that "fact" from math?

"Whilst the link between free school meal eligibility and educational performance is generally accepted it is none the less seen as a very crude measure due to the fact that a pupil is either eligible for free school meals or not:- there are no intermediate categories. In addition, some schools claim that it is difficult to persuade all those parents who might be eligible, to claim a free meal, resulting in a belief that there is under-reporting of eligibility. Both of these factors must reduce the reliability of this indicator of social need and therefore any link with educational achievement."

Posting this again, just for you, Mrz. Dig in until you get to the graphs.

Yes, I read that caution about free school meals. Reducing the reliability of an indicator doesn't mean rendering it meaningless and though you seem to be implying it makes the entire paper worthless you can't assume the scale of any reduction; as the authors go on to explain, the reduction isn't enough to matter.

Math it does matter how many times you post it experienced teachers are telling you it isn't the whole picture therefore not as clear cut as you want to believe. I'll leave the digging to you but that hole must be deep enough by now

Mathanxiety

?Kesstrel I respectfully suggest that you learn to read before paraphrasing other people's posts.?

There?s nothing wrong with paraphrasing as long as it doesn?t change the original meaning. All of the phrases I quoted were used by you in essentially the same way I used them, to convey the same meaning. I can supply the list of quotes in full, if you like, but it would make for a rather long post. Here is another quote from your earlier posts:

?120,000 families is the absolute bottom of the barrel. I suspect the stubborn 20% is made up of families with very similar problems or combinations of problems, with a few percentage points of children not learning because of other causes? (italicisation mine)

In the sentence above, you referred to the government's description of 120,000 problem families (2% of the total) who undoubtedly do have serious domestic issues, and explicitly identified the lowest socioeconomic 20% with them. This states the position you were taking earlier quite clearly, and contradicts the back-pedaling you were doing in your more recent description of "the 20%".

On another point, you quote me:''it is quite true that you can't use anecdotal evidence to prove an assertion. However, you can use it to disprove a sweeping generalisation; that is, to show that it doesn't apply in all cases.'
And then respond: "Am gobsmacked.Of course generalistions do not apply in all cases.?

But if you agree that there are exceptions ? and both Feenie's and Mrz?s schools, for example, are clearly an exception ? then why attack their efforts personally, and claim that they are wasting their time trying to teach the children in their schools to read? This doesn?t fit at all with your claim that we were supposed to understand that your sweeping generalisations allowed for exceptions.

The thing is, most people posting on this thread understand that when using generalisations in this kind of serious discussion, it is appropriate to use qualifying phrases such as ?In most cases?, etc. This is the hallmark of serious discussion about serious issues, because it allows both sides to understand each other?s meaning clearly. That's why politicians and propagandists, who are primarily interested in scoring rhetorical points, opt out of using qualifying phrases - they make their points sound less convincing.

Feenie's and Mrz?s schools, for example, are clearly an exception ? then why attack their efforts personally, and claim that they are wasting their time trying to teach the children in their schools to read?

I don't think a single poster on here has claimed that trying to teach children to read is a waste of time - only their claim that phonics is the only way to success and works with all children from YR to Y11.

Masha - They have never ever claimed that it is the only way - they claim it is the most successful way. The way that helps the most kids.

And they have never ever claimed it helps all kids. Only that it helps the vast, vast majority. No one is quite clear how many kids can't be taught to read using phonics, but estimates are around 2%.

And of course no one knows of the approx 2% who can't be taught to read using phonics, how many of them could be taught using another method.

And how many of them could never be taught to read due to severe SN.

Claiming that children can be taught to cope with the following 69 phonic irregularities (and the 2000 other words affected by them) by the phonic method is simply misusing the term 'phonics':

a: and ? apron, any, father
a-e: came ? camel
ai: wait ? said, plait
al: always ? algebra
-all: tall - shall
are: care - are
au: autumn - laugh, mauve
-ate: to deliberate - a deliberate act
ay: stays - says

cc: success - soccer
ce: centre - celtic
ch: chop ?chorus, choir, chute
cqu: acquire - lacquer 19

e: end ? English
-e: he - the
ea: mean - meant, break
ear: ear ? early, heart, bear
-ee: tree - matinee
e-e: even ? seven, fete
ei: veil - ceiling, eider, their, leisure
eigh: weight - height
eo: people - leopard, leotard
ere: here ? there, were
-et: tablet - chalet
eau: beauty ? beau

• ew: few - sew
• ey: they - monkey

ge: gem - get
gi: ginger - girl
gy: gym ? gynaecologist
ho: house - hour
i: wind ? wind down ski hi-fi

• ine: define ?engine, machine

ie: field - friend, sieve imb: limb ? climb ign: signature - sign mn: amnesia - mnemonic

ost: lost - post
-o: go - do
oa: road - broad
o-e: bone ? done, gone
-oes: toes ? does, shoes
-oll: roll - doll
omb: tombola - bomb, comb, tomb
oo: boot - foot, brooch
-ot: despot - depot
ou: sound - soup, couple
ough: bough - rough, through, trough, though
ought: bought - drought
oul: should - shoulder, mould
our: sour - four, journey
ow: how - low

qu: queen ? bouquet
s: sun ? sure
sc: scent - luscious, molusc
-se: rose - dose
ss: possible - possession
th: this - thing
-ture: picture - mature
u: cup ? push
ui: build ? fruit, ruin
wa: was ? wag
wh: what - who
wo: won - woman, women, womb
wor: word ? worn
x: box - xylophone, anxious

• y-: type - typical
• -y: daddy - apply

z: zip ? azure

Claiming that children can be taught to cope with the following 69 phonic irregularities (and the 2000 other words affected by them) by the phonic method is simply misusing the term 'phonics'

Can you give us your precise understanding /definition of the the term 'phonics'?

It could well be that it is you who are misusing the term, masha, but without knowing exactly what you mean by it we can't make a judgement.

P.S Masha. If you could do it without one of your interminable lists I'm sure most people would be grateful.

Claiming that children can be taught to cope with the following 69 phonic irregularities (and the 2000 other words affected by them) by the phonic method is simply misusing the term 'phonics':

Oh for goodness sake masha people have been taught to cope with "irregularities" of the English spelling system for decades using phonics. Given your odd lists I'm not sure you would know phonics if it jumped up and bit you!

Asking what exactly phonics is in the context of a language with so many irregularities is a fair question.

If there are rules that apply to only one or two words for instance, are they rules or are they exceptions? What is the difference between teaching highly unusual words as sight words or words to be memorised and teaching someone to decode them using the unusual phoneme grapheme correspondence?

I may be mistaken but I thought I say 'koob' mentioned as a nonsense word included in the phonics check, or maybe it was 'kool' -- reverse the consonants and the vowel sound is slightly different. (Bear with me, I have an Irish accent with a trace of midwest US)

And then there are the heteronyms.

Kesstrel, you changed the original meaning considerably.
The phrase 'in general' implies 'in most cases'.
The term 'average' implies there are children performing above and below. What the average does not show is how far above and how far below. Depending on the sample size, if enough students perform between those two points and an average can be found, then what you have is a meaningful number that can indeed be used in a serious discussion.
In fact, the only sort of figures that can be used in a serious discussion on a subject like this are statistics that have been produced using standard, tried and tested means of extracting information. With statistics, you can always assume there are exceptions, but the beauty of them is that they do in fact describe 'most cases', or 'the general situation'. If you don't use statistics, what you are using is your impressions.

As far as your '120,000' families point --
Me: 'I suspect the stubborn 20% is made up of families with very similar problems or combinations of problems, with a few percentage points of children not learning because of other causes'
You: 'you referred to the government's description of 120,000 problem families (2% of the total) who undoubtedly do have serious domestic issues, and explicitly identified the lowest socioeconomic 20% with them. This states the position you were taking earlier quite clearly, and contradicts the back-pedaling you were doing in your more recent description of "the 20%".

Actually, I went to great pains not to 'explicitly' state that 120,000 families' problems = the problems of the whole of the bottom 20%. What I clearly failed to convey to you there was the concept of a spectrum.
Look again at the phrases 'similar problems' and 'combinations of problems' and 'not learning because of other causes'.
Do I have to spell out that some families in the bottom 20% may 'merely' experience overcrowding to the point where there is no quiet place for a child to read or do homework, that many children in the 20% may live in homes where there are no books and no money for them, a good few children have a main caregiver who does not respond sensitively to them, while some experience the full force of issues described by Louise Casey? That is what I meant by 'similar problems' and 'combinations of problems'. To read into that that all the bottom 20% has exactly the same issues as the bottom 2% demonstrates a lack of ability to read. Or a spectacular ability to read something that wasn't there. Choose your preference.

' then why attack their efforts personally, and claim that they are wasting their time trying to teach the children in their schools to read? This doesn?t fit at all with your claim that we were supposed to understand that your sweeping generalisations allowed for exceptions.'

Again, when you look at statistics you can take it as given that there are exceptions. Part of your difficulty in understanding what I am posting here seems to spring from an incomplete understanding of the nature of statistics (and some commonly understood terms used in the English language).

There is no waste of time here. Any teacher who is as dedicated as those here seem to be will manage to find a way to teach children to read. Teaching children to read is a good thing in and of itself. What they cannot do with classroom focus alone is make sure their students' gains are sustained through secondary -- what I have said is that the efforts to teach reading are not likely (based on past experience and observations translated into statistics) to have the effect on the children's academic future that the proponents of SP here hope for. Statistics show that children from certain sections of society do not show sustained progress (note: statistics = 'in general', 'in most cases', etc).

Indigo, the government has decided in its wisdom that SP for all is the way forward.

'Math it does matter how many times you post it experienced teachers are telling you it isn't the whole picture therefore not as clear cut as you want to believe.'

Mrz, the experienced teachers are talking about their individual schools. When all schools are doing as well as yours, then there will be statistics to reflect that. Until then the statistics show that not all schools are doing half as well as you claim yours is doing.

Do you understand the difference between statistics gathered from multiple schools and perhaps thousands of children, and individual experience in one school (i.e. anecdote)? You can't imply based on your own school experience that all schools are like that. You can't even argue based on your own school experience that all schools could be like that until someone sits down and finds out what exactly it is that you are getting right and trains other teachers to do it the way you do.

The govt has not said SP for all.

It has said that all children should be properly taught phonics in the infants.

Which is exactly right. If you don't teach someone phonics properly how can you tell if they fall into the very rare case of someone who can't be taught with high quality phonics teaching?

If the child fails the Y1 and Y2 phonics chech the govt has not said what should be done.

Lots of kids initially learn quicker and easier with whole words rather than pure phonics. That does not mean that those kids cannot or should not learn via phonics.

This 6 week summer holiday I am trying to teach my DS to read using phonics - before he goes up to high school. Becaus school never did.

He got a level 5 in reading - and he feels it's an embarrassing secret he'll never admit to anyone that he cant read a word he's never seen before.

If the phonics check had been in place when he was in Y1 he would not have been failed so badly.

But everyone knows what mrz is doing right - high quality phonics teaching.

There is absolutely no reason to believe all schools can't do as well as mrz's school.