WHY don't some teachers teach pure phonics? And what impact does it have on how teachers are viewed?

[TeenPlusTwenties]

As seen on this board by a current thread (which I decided not to hijack) and another one this week on AIBU, there still seems to be a chunk of current teachers not attempting to teach decoding via phonics but preferring mixed methods (phonics, plus whole words, plus guessing).

Do you think the fact so many teachers are failing to teach phonics properly impacts on how the profession as a whole is viewed?

If the main thing that parents of young children understand is important (reading) is not being taught in the way deemed most effective from research, that is also mandated in the NC, doesn't that undermine trust and respect massively?

I'm trying to think of a good analogy, but in medicine there is NICE which looks at data on effectiveness of medicines and then says what can / can't be used.

Is this because teachers are so overworked they don't read the research? Or are primary teachers not maths-literate enough to understand data, and so prefer their own sample-of-one instead?

Do parents end up 'not trusting' teachers because they can see such a blatant example of not following good practice /not knowing what they are doing

phonics is not the be all and end all.
plus in a class of 30 the chance is high that there is at least one child who can't deal with phonics.

tbh I think teaching to read formally should start from y1 and not reception.

Because phonics doesn't work for every child. (on a population level it has been shown to be effective up to 95% but this has been disputed)
Because there isn't the funding to train teachers effectively.
Because some teachers have seen trends in teaching reading change 3-4 times and are fed up!

There's so many reasons. Current research says phonics is best. Due to the nature of educational research it won't be that long before someone else comes out with other research with a different method that works.

It's like a lot of areas of research. I teach secondary and current research is retrieval practise, direct instruction, dual coding etc. Ten years ago research said pupils learnt best by discovering stuff and moving around the classroom. It won't be long before more research comes out with the new latest thing.

Adapting teaching practice to keep up with research isn't a bad thing. But I don't expect every staff member to keep up with every little change. I can see how some staff become jaded towards research quite quickly!

not all words are phoetically decodable

tbh I blame phonics for bad spelling unless it's backed up with structural grammar and spelling teaching.

Are you a teacher? I'm not - a governor.
It's my understanding that the research on phonics is shockingly poor with a very very small sample size.

But it is STATUTORY ?

And why jump to using a method that works for ~80% (mixed methods) rather than the method that works for 95%+ ?

This isn't a 1 year wonder like some other stuff (learning styles, growth mindset, flipped learning, whatever).

Well, if they are Scottish teachers then they are following Education Scotland guidance.

I think only England has a 100% synthetic Phonics approach.

No, I'm not a teacher, I'm a maths-literate interested bystander.

Also - books to read that follow are pure structure are expensive. Schools don't have the money to get rid of all their previous reading books and buy new ones. We can buy some and have them available but we just have to manage with what we've got.

I’m not a teacher but my dyslexia inspired my mother to train as a special needs teacher. It is my understanding that children (and adults for that matter) learn in many different ways and I can’t see the harm in learning more than one approach to a problem.

learning styles, growth mindset, flipped learning, whatever

None of those were one year wonders either! Particularly growth mindset. Still being pedalled in some schools.

I'd dispute the 95%+ too based on the tiny sample sizes. There's not doubt it works for a lot of students. But when it isn't working, other methods are needed.

Nobody actually uses phonics to read in the end - there are far too many English words that are not decodable, and it's too slow. My DD is Y1, my third child and they were all taught slightly different versions of phonics, but she's now using a mixture of recognising whole words (their phonics scheme teaches the high frequency non decodable words plus some she has just seen lots) sounding out new words and a bit of guessing (which I'm trying to discourage). If you insist on pure phonics nobody would ever get beyond the mind numbing c-a-t stage to reading fluently. Are you saying that some schools are not teaching phonics at all, or that they are not stamping down on other practices?

Hairy Wasn't there was matched funding for replacing books for ages? And given that teaching children to read is almost the Number 1 thing primary schools need to do, I don't believe that this late in the day it is budget, I think it is lack of will.

Haus My understanding is that the research says that teaching a mix of methods is harmful. ie That 80% learn to read with a mix of methods whereas 95% lean with pure phonics.

Teachermaths When it isn't working

Yup I'll give you that, maybe by year 2.
But not 4 weeks into reception like on the other thread currently running.

So basically so far, teachers aren't teaching to statutory rules because they think they know better than the government rules which were research based.

Do you think that impacts on how teachers are viewed by parents who see their 4 year olds being told to guess words rather than decode them?

Hmmmm I've also read 'research' which states the best way to read is by reading.
That's how I learnt I guess and I've always been a good reader. I used a dictionary too.
If phonics is so good how come writing, grammar and spelling is often dreadful?

tbh I blame phonics for bad spelling unless it's backed up with structural grammar and spelling teaching.

That’s bad teaching of phonics rather than phonics itself.

Where did you get that understanding theworldisfullofgs? Yes, there are some studies that’s are small, but that’s the same in any area of research. But pretty much all the evidence from the last 30-40years comes down on the side of phonics only. The evidence for mixed methods is pretty much non-existent.

The ‘searchlights’ were put into the NLS in 1998 for political reasons, despite it being suggested that they should follow the evidence and use phonics only.

English isn't a phonetic language. No one could read an adult book just using phonics. Phonics has become a huge industry with lots of expensive materials for schools to buy. I'm sceptical about the current push for solely phonics and would be pleased if my child's teacher took a more flexible approach.

I don’t think it leads to a lack of trust in teachers. Most parents wouldn’t know enough about phonics to think the way you suggest.

A few Posters above have said the research you’re referring to is poor, but you’ve not yet responded to that?

Please can someone tell me these English words that aren't decodable.

You are missing the point that the research isn't watertight and is only from very small samples. Teachers know this.

Most parents will "help" with reading at home using mixed methods, due to how they learnt to read (pre phonics). High frequency words are learnt differently too.

This is why phonics should be emphasised in the early teaching of reading to beginners (ie unskilled readers) when they start school.
Just found this on the NC. Phonics should be emphasised. Not the sole method used. Academies don't have to follow the NC.

Funding wise schools got up to £3k from 2011. That's not enough to replace an entire reading scheme in a whole school. Let alone keep it updated.

I seriously believe parents should be reader to their own children. Encouraging a love of books, setting a positive example, sowing a love of literature, ensuring an understanding of the rhythm and flow of language.
This is missing in a lot of children, they do not hear the patterns, appreciate the structure and cannot write in an appropriate style. Of course they can pass a sats test which is neither here nor there, it just breaks writing down in a mathematical way which is wrong.

You might find this interesting.

drspouse in the sentence you chose 'one' and 'decodable'.

@drspouse you can find list online. Here is one example:
quizlet.com/26249273/non-decodable-words-flash-cards/

I commented on the other thread. Ds didn’t learn to read with phonics. Spend hours and hours at home teaching e and c and got precisely no where. So he’s definitely in the 5% (which I’d also dispute) who it doesn’t work for.
So obviously I am all for teachers actually teaching rather than sticking rigidly to what the mindless machine says. Children aren’t computer where you put in data and output results.