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

Why would a child be running through all the possible sounds for ‘ai’?

Because if you meet an unfamiliar word you've got to try all the permutations to make sure it is the right word.

Also, if you say 'pain' with an 'e' it makes pen, so you've added a potential source of confusion. See also laid, fail, tail...

If you're honest with yourself, it's much easier and more useful to teach said as a stand-alone exception word and introduce other exception words when you come across them than it is to try and get four and five year olds to retain and refer to rules that are only actually useful once in a blue moon.

Children substitute alternatives very quickly and with ease. They don't make anything like the drama that non-phonics trained adults imagine they do.

You'll be pleased to know Roly that both said and says are year 1 common exception words.

Realistically though, do you want a child to have to run through e and ai sounds for every word containing the ai digraph when 99 times out 100 it makes the ai sound?

?????!!!!!?????
You teach the children the ai digraph as a common way to show the /ay/ sound.

And then, a bit later, you teach that there are a very small number of words (basically, just three words in common usage--again, said, against) where the ai digraph shows an /e/ sound.

The children understand just fine that there is just a tiny handful of special words that use this pattern, and these three words can easily be memorized. If they come across a new, unknown word which contains the ai digraph (like "traipse"). they of course read it as /traips/--why on earth would they read it any other way? They know perfectly well that this digraph shows this sound 99% of the time.

I think the alphabetic spelling charts are really helpful.

I also think that most people here are going about things the wrong way round. Remember, writing REPRESENTS speech. Speech does not represent writing.

Remember, writing REPRESENTS speech. Speech does not represent writing.

Yes. This.

Third that.

Really isn’t a problem Roly.In practice, pretty much every child will sound out the ‘ai’ as /ai/ not /e/ first.

In the very unlikely event a child a child sounds out something like ‘rain’ as /r/ /e/ /n/, it’s a simple case of reminding them /ai/ is most common and to try that first. Although as Feenie says, most children can try an alternative so fast it isn’t really too much of an issue if they do.

@TeenPlusTwenties It was your comment basically implying that primary teachers might not be maths literate enough, that offended me. It still does. That alone is teacher bashing. I'm absolutely sick of primary teachers being perceived as less intelligent (I have all As at A level - including maths- a first at undergraduate level and a distinction in my PGCE). People like you don't help that perception. . What do you think we do all day? Cut out and colour? Oh, and teach a bit of phonics here and there?

@Flatwhite32 - did you feel that you got taught how children learn to read, and how best to teach it?

I think my own frustration is that I do really respect my kids' primary teachers, and I think they've been short-changed by a PGCE system that just doesn't take teaching how to read anywhere near seriously enough.

Flat I have a great regard for teachers. I am generally very supportive of teachers. I couldn't be a teacher, keeping 2 kids on track is hard enough, teaching 30 and helping them all progress over a vast number of subjects is a massive skill.

But many primary teachers will not have Maths above GCSE level, that is a fact. So I was mooting as to whether a lack of ability/confidence in dealing with statistics etc might have a bearing on the fact that there is a clearly unresolved issue within primary teaching on whether the research shows it is worthwhile or not.

If I went to a doctor who said 'well I know giving vaccines to pre schoolers is government policy but personally I don't think they need all 8, I think 6 is enough and then doing homeopathy for the other 2 will be OK, and I've known many children not have the vaccines and they've been fine' then I'd find another doctor.

So it concerns me that some teachers on this thread (and in real life) don't seem to even agree on 'what teaching using phonics' really means, let alone whether it works.

I agree with Flu . I am really struggling to understand how we have a system for certifying primary teachers that apparently doesn't include ensuring they know the best methods for teaching children to read.

Primary teachers are asked to do loads of things. But pretty much the number 1 priority thing I would think is teaching children to be effective readers, which surely includes being able to read words new to them.

You see, I'm assuming (and believing) that teachers are professionals and they want to do the best by the children they teach.

Therefore if they aren't teaching phonics it must either be:

• because they don't know how
• because they think they are, but aren't
• because they don't believe it is as good as the mixed methods they are using
• some other reason

I'm hearing all of the first 3 reasons on this thread, I think.

But many primary teachers will not have Maths above GCSE level, that is a fact. So I was mooting as to whether a lack of ability/confidence in dealing with statistics etc might have a bearing on the fact that there is a clearly unresolved issue within primary teaching on whether the research shows it is worthwhile or not.
I'm not a teacher but this is so patronizing that I feel cross on their behalf.

Because phonics does not work for all kids. I would go as far to say that they don't work for half of all kids! Neither of my DD's got phonics, the elder escaped it for complicated reasons, I taught her to read my way and she was already on chapter books when she started into the British system in year 1. Her sister was subjected to them, put her off learning and reading, only when she went into year two did the sensible teacher suggest abandoning phonics and she learned to read the same way I taught her sister, a combination of flash cards and books

Not all children learn to read using phonics. DD failed her phonics test but had already learnt to read and had a reading age way ahead of her peers. Her teacher wasn’t in the slightest bit concerned that she’d failed the test. Neither was I, as I knew she could read extremely well.

So I’m glad teachers don’t just teach pure phonics and I would have a dim view of a teacher who couldn’t cater to the different needs of different children.

Adding in twopennyworth from a school with an unusually large number of children with illiterate parents (Gypsy / Roma / Traveller), so the school teaching was the only reading instruction or practice that 35%+ of each cohort got. c30% of children in each class on SEN register (some with very high levels of SEN due to distrust of special schools by GRT community) and a few children each year starting school with very little or no spoken language

Pure phonics taught. Only phonic reading books used.

95-100% scores in phonics check each year (extra 5% usually representing 1 child with complex SEN). Almost every child able to read.

The thing is, these children who 'don't get phonics', who 'learn by memorising words and are extremely good readers' - they must know phonics in order to be able to decode new words.

So what they are doing is working out the phonic code for themselves. DS - a very able self-taught pre-school reader - did this. He memorised whole books, matched words on the page to words as they were said, and reverse-engineered the phonic code for himself so he could read new words.... which when you come to think f it is a LOT hardr than being taught the phonic code explicitly!

That's why supposedly 'able readers' fail the phonics test - their 'reverse engineering' or 'self teaching' of the phonic code is imperfect, OR they mistakenly correct 'non-words' - ie new words to them - as similar known words. It's really interesting to listen to such children read, as it is the longer phonically regular new words that they will often stumble on or change to the nearest familiar word.

DS was well taught phonics - for encoding, particularly - in Reception, to complement his self-taught decoding.

Lol stucknoue! How many children do you know who don't get phonics? 🤣

DD failed her phonics test but had already learnt to read

The phonics test tests a child's ability to decode both new words and existing words. The new words are 'non words', but to be fair many technical new words encountered in later life look like 'non words' too!

Why do you define a child who CANNOT decode new words as well as existing words as being able to read? You may mean they can get the gist of a passage, that they understand much of what they pass their eyes over, that they have a decent store of 'known words' that gets them through? But they can't decode an unfamiliar word?

I did get taught @Fluandseptember but methods aside, a major problem we have is lack of support from a growing number of parents. Increasing numbers of children start school having never been read to. Phonics or no phonics, that is having a massive impact on reading.
There is also a huge lack of funding in primary education due to government cuts. A teacher may be teaching a class with 1/3 SEN children, maybe more, with no extra support. Our reading schemes are ancient as there isn't the money to replace them. There isn't the money to send as many teachers on courses any more, so any refresher courses on teaching reading are unlikely to happen these days.
And yes, not many primary teachers gave time during a 60 hour week to read current research.
I just feel so upset that my colleagues and I do the absolute best for the children we teach, and people continue to teacher bash in the media, in public and on mumsnet. It really makes me feel like giving up. I know you say you're not teacher bashing, but I've shared your thoughts on a group my colleagues are part of, and they are all as upset as I am, and the EYFS teachers said they can't believe you have the audacity to insult our maths intelligence. Thanks for that.

Debbie Hepplewhite's online phonics course is university accredited and just twenty quid.

phonicstrainingonline.com

There are also free training videos on her YouTube channel.

whether a lack of ability/confidence in dealing with statistics etc might have a bearing on the fact that there is a clearly unresolved issue within primary teaching on whether the research shows it is worthwhile or not.

OP, I genuinely don't think it is this.

I think it is poor training at PGCE / BEd level (I know I was taught the Searchlights approach long after it should not have been mentioned) - also recognising that the primary PGCE teaches teachers who will teach 4-11 year olds to teach all possible subjects AND classroom management AND how to teach children with SEN of all types AND involves very significant periods of time in the classroom. Thus time spent on e.g. initial teaching of reading is more limited than it ideally would be.

I think there is also lack of time once in school to read research, with more time and credence given to 'learning from peers / mentors', who again may have limited expertise in a specific area.

I think there is lack of time per se - with very significant time spent on what might be deemed 'social work' issues of child protection, basic care, family liaison etc, and ever more demanding curricula, teachers are simply tired a lot....

I think there is additional exhaustion from constant change - constant extolling of initiative a or B or C or D, that can lead to anything that isn't the current initiative falling by the wayside or the good initiatives never being adopted because they are so hidden amongst the many poor ones.

In that context, evaluating whether a method that is 'fine' for 4/5 (and is easy, and known, and you have the resources for) is better or worse than one which is said to be 'fine' for 19/20 (and which is hard, and not well known, and you have to create and buy new resources for and be trained in and then train everyone else in the school) is not a question of maths ability, more a question of whether it can possibly be fitted in...

And then, a bit later, you teach that there are a very small number of words (basically, just three words in common usage--again, said, against) where the ai digraph shows an /e/ sound.

By which point they've probably already come across and learned the word said...

Primary schools are also small, close communities, and there can be an element of 'groupthink' - 'our reading results are good, we don't need to really push explicit phonics teaching too hard, we'll do the initial sounds and then move on as usual, it works for us' which make it very, very hard to be the iconoclast, the one who changes everything and changes the culture, requiring everyone else to work harder for a bit for an ultimate goal that may not be that much better in terms of Ofsted / SATs / league tables than current attainment....