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 right wing??!
Are brains right wing now?

English is a very tricky language to read when you're only using decoding strategies.

Only if you don't know all of the GPCs.

Or if no one has bothered to teach you them because they think English isn't phonetic and haven't read the curriculum.

I think threads like these, where parents spend 10 minutes googling phonics and think they know more than teachers, have more of an impact on "how teachers are viewed" than the actual teaching of phonics in schools does.

I think most people on this thread are teachers now or have taught in the past.

I think most people on this thread are teachers now or have taught in the past.

Well, it is a thread asking them a question. Only to be expected.

In practice though, children will have encountered and learned the word was before you teach them that rule.

They will, especially with words such as was. That's where you do the incidental teaching of the code. You still then cover it in more detail when you reach it in the learning programme, but it will be covered briefly in your every day teaching when reading too.

The rules, or code, is also displayed in all of our classrooms from day 1 of reception. It is referred to regularly, and increasingly the children start to use it as well.

Hence my point about teaching it in reception.

They do, don't they?

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay

My issue is the anecdata. Once again we have a teacher thread that:

A) only gives information about the teacher from one view point.

B) makes one example the rule.

As a teacher I would see it as pretty poor to mindlessly teach one method and ignoring the needs of your class. Teachers are often wary about guidelines, whilst trying mainly to stick to them, because they change so very often.

Children aren’t robots. One method might be mostly successful but it is a poor show if that’s all you gave all students. What about the ones it doesn’t work for?

The general mistrust of teachers is very damaging to teacher pupil relationships and is making teachers less effective.

I’m not convinced. Discussions I’ve had with R and Yr1 teachers would suggest not. The fact that was, want and what appear on lists of ‘sight words’ or words that can’t be decided back that up.

This might be the fault of letters & sounds. Partly because the bit that everyone’s read doesn’t really go into the sort of incidental teaching Aragog is talking about. It covers how to teach tricky words but then gets a bit wishy washy and gets misinterpreted.

Secondly, the pacing is a bit weird. The first spelling for each sound is recommended to be taught throughout reception (phases 2-4) and then all the alternative spellings in year 1(phase 5) And teachers don’t tend to pick out bits of phase 5 to teach in the middle of phase 3 unless they’re confident. Some of the pre-existing schemes had much better pacing.

Children aren’t robots. One method might be mostly successful but it is a poor show if that’s all you gave all students. What about the ones it doesn’t work for?

Oh, we just ignore them

To answer your question, the only children who phonics doesn't work for are children with very complex SEND needs and struggle with any method.

As a teacher I would see it as pretty poor to mindlessly teach one method and ignoring the needs of your class

There's nothing mindless about it - it takes training and skill.

It is pretty mindless to ignore years and years of research though, and to refuse to try something which works for all children becuase you personally don't think it could possibly be the case.

@Feenie

I’m not suggesting are ignoring them. I just find it odd that some on this thread are so vehement about only ever teaching synthetic phonics and nothing else.

I teach secondary and had no idea that this was such a hot button issue in primary. But it honestly seems like an over reaction by the OP to claim that teachers are less respected because of their teaching or not of phonics. Has the world gone mad?

I have no idea about the rights or wrongs of teaching phonics or any other method. It just hate absolutism. It is often an extremely unhelpful mindset.

Another teacher bashing thread! Sick of these! If you're so bothered about it @TeenPlusTwenties, become a teacher. As for being maths literate, I got As at GCSE and A level for maths. I see nowhere do you mention the responsibility of parents in helping children with reading. Fewer children have access to books at home, and fewer are being read to, so this doesn't help the situation either.

I have no idea about the rights or wrongs of teaching phonics or any other method. It just hate absolutism. It is often an extremely unhelpful mindset.

Totally agree with this.

Research is useful. There are problems with research into phonics and the sample sizes of the samples used. Look at growth mindset. No study has come even close to replicating Dwecks original because it is clearly bollocks.

refuse to try something which works for all children

Apart from the pps who have indicated that this isn't the case in their specific cases. Which doesn't mean that statistically they aren't in the minority however they still exist.

I agree with @BelleSausage absolutism should be avoided in education. Happily the teachers I know in real life aren't like this.

I’m not sure you understand quite how few children we are talking about here. As Feenie says, these children generally struggle using any method and they don’t usually end up in mainstream secondary. That 95% is a conservative figure.

I understand why people think a range of methods might be better. But I couldn’t in all conscience have switched back to teaching in a way that left nearly half of our cohort behind despite ‘making good progress from their starting points’.

That 95% is a conservative figure

Says Who?

This is interesting

www.teachers.org.uk/education-policies/research/synthetic-phonics

My ds is doing absolutely fine in main stream secondary education despite never managing to pass a phonics assessment.
I did absolutely fine in mainstream education and have several degrees from RG universities. I still cannot hear a lot of phonics sounds. Thankfully my teachers didn't write me off as a result of this failure.
I accept it is a totally unrepresentative sample but it makes me question the if you cannot learn phonics you are not going to be in mainstream secondary idea.

I think the big problem is that phonics is taught incredibly poorly.

Lots of kids learn to read by just being read to, and by learning a little bit of phonics - they work it all out by themselves. I did just that. So did two of my DC.

But DC3 did not. She needed to be TAUGHT how to read, and the idea that 'oh, if you look at it enough you'll get it' really isn't teaching!

And phonics IS what we ALL go back to when we see a word we've never come across before. Just because you don't think you use it, doesn't mean that you don't. English can be bonkers, so you may be wrong in your guess - but you'll be wrong along with almost everybody else.

Eg Mildenhall. You just aren't going to read that as 'potato', are you. You are going to read it as Mill-Den-Hall. Or just possibly Mild - en - hall.

Seems to me: phonics may be a bit of a nuisance for some kids, who learn to read perfectly well without it. But they aren't the ones to worry about. It's a lot of kids who find reading difficult, who need it. And that's why it needs to be taught, and taught well.

And yes, it's statutory.

Phonics is taught very poorly indeed in some schools, to the point where it is completely unhelpful. Teachers need to be properly trained in it. Done well, it’s a good system for most children learning to read and done very well, it’s a great help for their spelling too.

@Blueshadow

I think this links up with the question about where the government funding for this has gone. Teacher training is incredibly expensive. If you want something embedded in the classroom then it is going to take more than one session. Training costs about £500 per teacher for an average day training course. A week long training would run to the thousands per teacher (including the cost of cover).

It is one thing for the government to make something statutory and another for them to adequately provide for these dictates to be delivered. The introduction of 1-9 at GCSE is the perfect fucking example of this.

What I also meant to say is that this training is often so costly that one teacher is sent on the actual course and then has to feedback to a whole department. Things are obviously lost in translation.

Or outside agencies can be brought in to do while staff training days but these inevitably have a product to push and can be one sided and unreliable. I believe there is a dust up at the moment about one phonics programme being pushed over the others by interested parties at the DfES.

Except there are Phonics Hubs that have been set up around the country running training and giving support to schools who need it for free now.

Christ knows why they didn't do this twelve years ago though.

Training also requires time.

There are Maths Hubs set up at all levels which are free to run and attend. But you are expected to meet out of school time if you want to be part of it. Teacher work life balance is shit anyway, why add more work even if you know it will be great CPD. If you are allowed out of school, there is still a cover cost which most schools can't afford to meet.

Phonics Hubs come in, if you qualify for extra help. - above national pupil premium, RI Ofsfed, below national phonics check resu!ts.