For many people reading this, learning to read would have followed a similar pattern of being taught the alphabet, broadly knowing the corresponding sounds to each letter and being introduced to simple texts. Said texts would have introduced the reader to accessible and appropriate vocabulary with accompanying illustrations to support comprehension and those words would enter one’s orthographic store (our long term memory from which we retrieve all the words that we’ve learned to date). Burgeoning comprehension skills would also support having a stab at unfamiliar vocabulary and the more we read, the quicker our retrieval of words, the more our comprehension would develop and the more proficient we would become as readers. It’s how I learned to read and despite being biased, I’d like to say it was pretty effective.
Today’s teaching of reading is different and there’s been a departure from the aforementioned in favour of phonics. It cannot be said that any approach to reading is completely void of some form of phonics. Yet phonics is now king when it comes to early reading in schools and it’s the government mandated approach to learning to read.
Today’s teaching of reading is different and there’s been a departure from the aforementioned in favour of phonics. It cannot be said that any approach to reading is completely void of some form of phonics. Yet phonics is now king when it comes to early reading in schools and it’s the government mandated approach to learning to read.
 |
Phonics effectively provides a code for the budding reader to rely upon in learning to read. Graphemes (written letters or combinations of letters such as ‘sh’, ‘ch’ or ‘igh’) are taught with their corresponding phonemes (the term given to sounds). These phonemes are the smallest unit of sound that can be found within a word and there are approximately 44 phonemes in the English language. Each phoneme provides a meaningful unit of sound upon which words can be constructed by ‘blending’ these phonemes. For example, blending the accompanying phonemes for ‘c - a - t’ would result in the word ‘cat’.
It might seem like a great strategy to adopt phonics in schools in providing children with a solid system that enables them to decode words and learn how to read. However, there’s a problem. Unlike some languages where the alphabet is purely phonetic, thus phonics instinctively lending itself to the teaching of how to read, English is only partly phonetic. English also has many contradictory rules that don’t make an approach like phonics fit for purpose in teaching reading. As a result, once you encounter a word that isn’t phonetic, phonics becomes pretty useless and as far as being able to decode unfamiliar text, you’re ultimately screwed. Herein lies the problem - phonics only unlocks part of the code that is learning to read. So why is it followed so rigidly in schools? And what has been the impact of what appears to be a flawed education policy when it comes to teaching strategies for early reading in schools?
For years, proponents of phonics have been pitted in a political and somewhat ideological battle against proponents of a whole language approach to teaching reading (where words are not deconstructed for the benefit of decoding and sight recognition and comprehension are instead relied upon). It’s referred to as the reading wars and it could be argued that supporters of phonics are winning with the credence given to its teaching in schools as outlined in the 2006 Rose Report. Following a review of the teaching of early reading in primary schools, the Rose Report recommended that phonics ‘should be taught as the prime approach in learning to decode (to read) and encode (to write/spell) print’. In adopting the recommendations as education policy, the government too declared their allegiance to phonics.
The advantages of phonics are that it does provide children with a code for reading and writing phonetically plausible text and to do so relatively quickly. Although in doing so, it also teaches children a strategy for writing that put candidly, is incorrect.
Parents and teachers of primary school children will be familiar with children's writing where few words are spelt correctly because phonics is so heavily relied upon. Even if a child has encountered a word and knows how to spell it correctly, the retrieval from their orthographic store is arguably hindered as their instinct for spelling is to rely upon their phonics. Consequently, words which aren’t phonically plausible are often misspelt and phonics has a direct role to play in this. Indeed, young children are often filled with glee when they’re able to independently write their first sentences such as ‘migh cat iz bloo’ or ‘wee went too a partee wiv migh bruthr and wee had cayk’ that are phonetically plausible but full of incorrect spellings that children are ignorant to. It’s great to see them writing but a few years later, we remove the security blanket that is phonics and tell them they’ve been spelling incorrectly all these years.
The focus on decoding within phonics is eroding overall literacy and detracts from the enjoyment and comprehension skills to be gained from reading. But many children perceive their successful decoding of text alone as an indicator of being ‘a good reader’. As a result, phonics can somewhat limit the promotion of reading for pleasure and the comprehension skills that are needed for reading in our everyday lives. Though surely with a greater reliance on sight recognition, children’s comprehension would be improved as they would feel more inclined to immerse themselves in a text instead of focusing on decoding it. Alas, the government seem unable to see this but perhaps it has something to do with the extent to which proponents of phonics seemingly have their ear.
Phonics programmes such as Ruth Miskin’s Read Write Inc are big business. Ruth Miskin rose to prominence as a headteacher in the 1990s in Tower Hamlets, a London local authority with a large Bangladeshi diaspora. Many of the children at Miskin’s school were EAL students (English as an additional language), many of whom would have started school with basic, if any, English. Nonetheless, she was able to boast huge success in reading which she attributed to her school's commitment to the teaching of phonics. Yet with such a reliance on phonics, many phonics detractors have questioned whether the emphasis on comprehension in early reading at Miskin's school would have been sufficiently supported. Furthermore, it's commonly accepted that while EAL students can make rapid progress and have high word recognition when learning to read, their comprehension is often less secure and Miskin's approach would arguably have compounded that.
Nevertheless, Miskin went on to become considered a phonics guru who now sells her resources and training to schools across the country. She is an advisor to the DfE (Department for Education) and is one of their favoured faces when it comes to the teaching of reading. Therefore it's hard to argue the government isn't biased when it comes to phonics.
Many have argued this relationship represents a conflict of interest (particularly as Ruth Miskin’s materials and training are used in so many schools), something the government and Miskin have attempted to refute. Though between 2011 and 2013, the DfE made over £23 million of match-funding available for schools that purchased phonics materials or training from an approved list (which Ruth Miskin material and training naturally appeared on). As revealed in a Freedom of Information Act request by Professor Margaret Clark, of those funds over £4 million was spent on Read Write Inc materials while £546,614 went to Ruth Miskin Literacy Ltd for training. As it was match-funded, the amount received would also actually have been doubled.
More recently, Ruth Miskin Training was also selected by the DfE to deliver phonics roadshow events. More money in the bank for Ruth Miskin and further reflection of just how much influence she has over the government as she pushes her phonics agenda. Even Michael Rosen, who’s generally considered a literary living legend, has questioned the apparent conflict of interest. It really can’t be argued that the government is free of bias when it comes to their favour of phonics and that bias is blindly driving education policy on early reading.
I’m not arguing we do away with phonics in teaching children to read. After all, even if subconsciously, a connection between letters and sounds must be present as readers develop. Nonetheless, we need to move away from the rigid commitment to phonics as a preferred and often exclusive approach for early reading and certainly once readers no longer require the crutch that phonics can initially provide.
Phonics isn’t a panacea to raising literacy standards. It gives children an ability to access text and to write but it’s an introductory one and should be left at just that as there is only so far it can take a reader in accessing written English. There also needs to be a dialogue and realisation of what reading is and that it isn’t merely decoding phonetically plausible text which is only applicable to a limited amount of the English language. Reading is being able to appreciate and immerse one’s self in literature, to access and understand information and to unlock and explore knowledge and enjoyment from a wide range of texts. Phonics can’t achieve that and it’s time that realisation is reflected in education policy for early reading.
It might seem like a great strategy to adopt phonics in schools in providing children with a solid system that enables them to decode words and learn how to read. However, there’s a problem. Unlike some languages where the alphabet is purely phonetic, thus phonics instinctively lending itself to the teaching of how to read, English is only partly phonetic. English also has many contradictory rules that don’t make an approach like phonics fit for purpose in teaching reading. As a result, once you encounter a word that isn’t phonetic, phonics becomes pretty useless and as far as being able to decode unfamiliar text, you’re ultimately screwed. Herein lies the problem - phonics only unlocks part of the code that is learning to read. So why is it followed so rigidly in schools? And what has been the impact of what appears to be a flawed education policy when it comes to teaching strategies for early reading in schools?
For years, proponents of phonics have been pitted in a political and somewhat ideological battle against proponents of a whole language approach to teaching reading (where words are not deconstructed for the benefit of decoding and sight recognition and comprehension are instead relied upon). It’s referred to as the reading wars and it could be argued that supporters of phonics are winning with the credence given to its teaching in schools as outlined in the 2006 Rose Report. Following a review of the teaching of early reading in primary schools, the Rose Report recommended that phonics ‘should be taught as the prime approach in learning to decode (to read) and encode (to write/spell) print’. In adopting the recommendations as education policy, the government too declared their allegiance to phonics.
The advantages of phonics are that it does provide children with a code for reading and writing phonetically plausible text and to do so relatively quickly. Although in doing so, it also teaches children a strategy for writing that put candidly, is incorrect.
Parents and teachers of primary school children will be familiar with children's writing where few words are spelt correctly because phonics is so heavily relied upon. Even if a child has encountered a word and knows how to spell it correctly, the retrieval from their orthographic store is arguably hindered as their instinct for spelling is to rely upon their phonics. Consequently, words which aren’t phonically plausible are often misspelt and phonics has a direct role to play in this. Indeed, young children are often filled with glee when they’re able to independently write their first sentences such as ‘migh cat iz bloo’ or ‘wee went too a partee wiv migh bruthr and wee had cayk’ that are phonetically plausible but full of incorrect spellings that children are ignorant to. It’s great to see them writing but a few years later, we remove the security blanket that is phonics and tell them they’ve been spelling incorrectly all these years.
The focus on decoding within phonics is eroding overall literacy and detracts from the enjoyment and comprehension skills to be gained from reading. But many children perceive their successful decoding of text alone as an indicator of being ‘a good reader’. As a result, phonics can somewhat limit the promotion of reading for pleasure and the comprehension skills that are needed for reading in our everyday lives. Though surely with a greater reliance on sight recognition, children’s comprehension would be improved as they would feel more inclined to immerse themselves in a text instead of focusing on decoding it. Alas, the government seem unable to see this but perhaps it has something to do with the extent to which proponents of phonics seemingly have their ear.
Phonics programmes such as Ruth Miskin’s Read Write Inc are big business. Ruth Miskin rose to prominence as a headteacher in the 1990s in Tower Hamlets, a London local authority with a large Bangladeshi diaspora. Many of the children at Miskin’s school were EAL students (English as an additional language), many of whom would have started school with basic, if any, English. Nonetheless, she was able to boast huge success in reading which she attributed to her school's commitment to the teaching of phonics. Yet with such a reliance on phonics, many phonics detractors have questioned whether the emphasis on comprehension in early reading at Miskin's school would have been sufficiently supported. Furthermore, it's commonly accepted that while EAL students can make rapid progress and have high word recognition when learning to read, their comprehension is often less secure and Miskin's approach would arguably have compounded that.
Nevertheless, Miskin went on to become considered a phonics guru who now sells her resources and training to schools across the country. She is an advisor to the DfE (Department for Education) and is one of their favoured faces when it comes to the teaching of reading. Therefore it's hard to argue the government isn't biased when it comes to phonics.
Many have argued this relationship represents a conflict of interest (particularly as Ruth Miskin’s materials and training are used in so many schools), something the government and Miskin have attempted to refute. Though between 2011 and 2013, the DfE made over £23 million of match-funding available for schools that purchased phonics materials or training from an approved list (which Ruth Miskin material and training naturally appeared on). As revealed in a Freedom of Information Act request by Professor Margaret Clark, of those funds over £4 million was spent on Read Write Inc materials while £546,614 went to Ruth Miskin Literacy Ltd for training. As it was match-funded, the amount received would also actually have been doubled.
More recently, Ruth Miskin Training was also selected by the DfE to deliver phonics roadshow events. More money in the bank for Ruth Miskin and further reflection of just how much influence she has over the government as she pushes her phonics agenda. Even Michael Rosen, who’s generally considered a literary living legend, has questioned the apparent conflict of interest. It really can’t be argued that the government is free of bias when it comes to their favour of phonics and that bias is blindly driving education policy on early reading.
I’m not arguing we do away with phonics in teaching children to read. After all, even if subconsciously, a connection between letters and sounds must be present as readers develop. Nonetheless, we need to move away from the rigid commitment to phonics as a preferred and often exclusive approach for early reading and certainly once readers no longer require the crutch that phonics can initially provide.
Phonics isn’t a panacea to raising literacy standards. It gives children an ability to access text and to write but it’s an introductory one and should be left at just that as there is only so far it can take a reader in accessing written English. There also needs to be a dialogue and realisation of what reading is and that it isn’t merely decoding phonetically plausible text which is only applicable to a limited amount of the English language. Reading is being able to appreciate and immerse one’s self in literature, to access and understand information and to unlock and explore knowledge and enjoyment from a wide range of texts. Phonics can’t achieve that and it’s time that realisation is reflected in education policy for early reading.
