By Mike, Dec 5 2016 8:43AM
In 1992 the National Foundation for Educational Research reported on the results of its investigation into What Teachers in Training Are Taught about Reading. The report particularly drew attention to the anti-phonics bias it had detected in its survey. For example, as part of their research the team analysed booklists provided to students by their institutions. Analysis of these lists showed that amongst the most commonly recommended texts there were “no books dealing in any detail with the complex relationships between the writing system (the orthography) and the sound system (the phonology) of English”.
Amongst other findings the report revealed that in 15% of the institutions, courses on early reading included no mention of phonics at all. In the remainder phonics was taught only as part of a repertoire of mixed methods including look and say and ‘language experience’. “The general impression,” the report noted, was that “eclecticism rules”.
Shortly after the publication of the Rose Review in 2006, I joined several meetings which brought together large numbers of tutors and lecturers responsible for training teachers in the teaching of reading. Given the background of ITT resistance to phonics I wasn't surprised that I found many of those tutors and lecturers bewildered, resentful and fiercely resistant to change. In conversation with individuals it appeared to me that many might be incapable of changing their views because they did not have the constitutional resources to make the intellectual journey. Embracing the mixed cueing ideology had required from them no habit of (or aptitude for) rigorous mental effort. An approach to the teaching of reading that was largely content-free meant that there had been little need to absorb the implications let alone the detail of the vast body of research and no time required to understand our sound-spelling system. The ascent to the position of ‘reading expert’ had been, for some of them, virtually effortless. Nothing much to remember, little to understand – just a talent for vapid generalities and an ability to extemporise around the ideology of word-guessing. The same ideology that the late Professor Ken Rowe neatly characterised as “postmodernist claptrap about how children learn to read”.
Hardly surprising that when in 2010 Tom Burkhart used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the lists of recommended reading provided to teacher trainees by 46 initial teacher training institutions he found the same bias towards mixed methods. For example, only four of the institutions which provided booklists recommended Marilyn Jager Adams’ Beginning to Read.
In at least one case institutional resistance to phonics was so ingrained that it threatened to become self-destructive. A little over five years ago, a high-placed source within the Teacher Development Agency revealed to me that one institution had had to be threatened with the loss of its accreditation to train teachers unless it dropped its resistance to providing a proper training in phonics.
Given this background it is little wonder that surveys by the National Foundation for Educational Research have in the last few years repeatedly shown that primary schools are packed with teachers who, in the face of all research, cling to the same mixed methods – the approach that Professor Michael Pressley described as a “disastrous strategy”. With the consequence that even when initial teaching training does properly prepare students to teach reading, all that is undone when the students are on school placement and working alongside teachers who are still defiantly rooted in the dark ages.
It may seem unsurprising therefore that the culture of mixed methods – the reliance on the strategy of word-guessing – is so deeply embedded and perpetuates itself ad infinitum. But actually, its stubborn persistence is down to more than just a matter of professional tradition or entrenched habit.
One of the biggest obstacles to change is that teachers feel unmotivated to consider alternative approaches because they see no reason to make any significant change. In particular, they see no need for change because they work in a school culture in which standards are seen as being ‘good enough’. There is no professional incentive to reform the teaching of reading when teachers take for granted that around one child in five will never achieve reading success.
In my book, Phonics and the Resistance to Reading, I described the range of ways in which schools explain away reading failure using a typology of so-called ‘barriers to learning’ – characteristically blaming the children rather than looking for the weaknesses in the school’s teaching. Ironically these same teachers frequently complain that they themselves are victims in a ‘culture of blame’.
Teachers are only able to persist in this self-deluding deception by closing their eyes to the real victims of the incompetent teaching of reading. Low levels of literacy have lifelong consequences. As I pointed out in my book, “Poor reading at school is a strong predictor of social exclusion as an adult.” The consequences of bad teaching in schools today will persist throughout the lifetimes of so many of those unlucky enough to have been taught by the teachers who, in the face of all the evidence, still cling to word-guessing as their professional stock-in-trade.
By Mike, May 28 2015 7:30AM
The trend today is towards the tiny. Smaller, leaner, thinner, lighter. Modern innovation and design is a restless drive to miniaturisation. But sometimes less is just….well, less.
In too many primary schools – perhaps it is the majority of those schools – the phonics teaching provided is a cut-down version of what children should be entitled to. The children are short-changed by a version of phonics which is fragmentary, partial and disjointed– and for so many the inevitable price of this cut-down teaching is stunted reading development.
A number of devices are typically used to pare down the phonics curriculum. One of them is to allocate insufficient time; phonics sessions of fifteen to twenty minutes are quite simply too brief to give children sufficient time to learn. To make matters worse, the time that is allocated is often cluttered with extraneous games and activities that divert the focus of the session away from what should be learned.
Another technique of the reductionists is to give too little emphasis in the phonics sessions to reiteration, practice, consolidation and application, so children never have the opportunity to take their learning beyond the superficial. Further dilution is achieved by creating a disconnection – a sort of cordon-sanitaire – between what is taught in phonics and work on reading and writing during the rest of the day. This is often compounded by the use of non-decodable books as home readers.
The teaching of phonics is further diluted by a lack of attention to what children are learning – mistakes and misconceptions are not rapidly picked up and corrected. When children are noticed to be making poor progress, schools are often slow to take action – and when action is taken, it is commonly in the form of poor-quality support. In some schools, setting is used not to narrow gaps in progress, but to legitimise and widen them.
But the most destructive trick of all is to water-down the phonics curriculum by teaching it alongside word-guessing, with phonics positioned as just as one strategy among many. This is fatal to the building of children’s confidence and success.
Two factors seem to me to be particularly at work in encouraging teachers to persevere with this pale imitation, which passes for phonics only in the eyes of those who lack the understanding and experience to know what children should be entitled to receive.
Firstly, teachers lack an understanding of the way in which the sound to spelling system works in English and their lack of knowledge prevents them from understanding the utility of phonics. They simply don’t see how it ‘works’ and they discount the value of phonics teaching because they don’t understand it. You don’t teach well something you don’t value and (equally relevant here) you don’t value something you don’t teach well.
Secondly, teachers seem remarkably unconcerned about the long-term impact of poor teaching of reading. They apparently take it for granted that many will make only poor progress and regard as fanciful the notion that something approaching 100% success should be taken for granted. Teachers often seem unaware of or indifferent to the life-long handicaps imposed by poor literacy skills. As a result too many teachers are not motivated to question the success of their traditional method of teaching reading and see no reason to believe that any changes would make much difference.
The consequence of all this is that, despite the clear requirements of the new National Curriculum, phonics is rarely taught as it should be – thoroughly and professionally. Children instead are palmed off with a watered-down and adulterated substitute for the good teaching to which children should be entitled.
The tricks of the bonsai gardener include such techniques as root reduction and defoliation. In too many primary classrooms the art of phonics teaching is the art of bonsai.
By Mike, Nov 20 2014 9:16AM
Successive reports prepared by the National Foundation for Educational Research have shown that phonics is commonly taught alongside word-guessing – from context, pictures and so. In my book, Phonics and the Resistance to Reading, I described this as ‘partial phonics’ – in which bits and pieces of phonics are taught as simply one of a range of cues or searchlights.
A common feature of partial phonics is that the daily phonics teaching sessions are very short. And many schools justify this on the grounds that the Notes of Guidance that accompanied the freely-distributed Letters and Sounds phonics scheme recommended “around 20 minutes” of daily discrete teaching of phonics.
It would have seemed reasonable to teachers studying those Notes of Guidance to assume that the timing suggested was chosen on the basis that this was the amount of time needed to teach phonics effectively. But actually the 20 minutes was arrived at by way of a calculation of what was the maximum amount of time that the early years lobby would 'stand for'.
And just how little the early years lobby might be prepared to stand for was brought home to me very vividly during a high-level meeting I attended just a few years before Letters and Sounds appeared. During that meeting I was astonished to hear a prominent member of the early years movement likening the early teaching of reading to teaching children to lie down in the middle of the road!
So the 20 minute recommendation in Letters and Sounds appeared as a diplomatic gesture designed to placate the early years sector. The consequence is that years later many schools are still sticking to a time restriction that makes it virtually impossible to teach phonics thoroughly and effectively.
How long is actually needed? It will, of course, depend on the teacher and the class, but somewhere between 30 minutes and an hour should be a basic starting point when planning-in the daily sessions. Sticking to sessions so brief that they are inevitably ineffective is not the only factor needed to explain why so many schools routinely short-change children in the teaching of phonics – but it makes a significant contribution to why so many children never become capable readers.
By Mike, Nov 12 2014 9:57AM
A critic takes me to task for seeming to suggest that the ‘Reading Wars’ are still active. His point is that that those wars have ended and that phonics has won. And from some points of view he is, of course, right.
Academically the argument has been conclusively resolved in favour of phonics. The late Ken Rowe, who headed the authoritative Australian enquiry into the teaching of Reading, crisply expressed it this way: “…the incontrovertible finding from the extensive body of local and international evidence-based literacy research is that for children during the early years of schooling (and subsequently if needed), to be able to link their knowledge of spoken language to their knowledge of written language, they must first master the alphabetic code – the system of grapheme-phoneme correspondences that link written words to their pronounciations. Because these are both foundational and essential skills for the development of competence in reading, writing and spelling, they must be taught explicitly, systematically, early and well.”
It’s true, of course, that there are a few who continue to sail the old boats out there on the oxbow lake – but they are just fossilised remains from the long-since resolved clash of ideas. Their only relevance today is to remind us of how the study of reading has moved on from the days when the mantle of expertise in reading could be assumed without effort. It was so easy to develop a theory without the trouble of analysing the evidence – and so easy to accept and promulgate a theory that required no study.
And those who profess still to stand by the discredited guesswork model of word recognition seem to have tacitly accepted that it is no longer defensible – so they don’t bother to try. They don’t articulate an alternative position – their only stock-in-trade is misleading and misinformed attacks on phonics. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the real purpose of much anti-phonics propaganda is to serve as a release for angry embitterment.
But although the reading wars may be over, the casualties continue to mount. The biggest obstacle to reading success is, however, not anti-phonics propaganda, it is the state of professional knowledge. The average primary teacher has never been equipped with so much as a simplified form of the scientific understanding of reading. Without even a basic knowledge and understanding there is little incentive to study the simple view of reading, the alphabetic principle and the elaboration of the simple and complex codes. Without this background of essential professional knowledge phonics is too easily perceived as unreliable and unproven. The result is that teachers are simply not equipped to implement the reading provisions of the new National Curriculum and, despite the statutory requirement that “pupils should be taught to apply phonic knowledge and skills as the route to decode words”, in too many schools teachers will continue to muddle-on using the mixed methods of word guessing that, as I have shown in my book Phonics and the Resistance to Reading, have characterised the teaching of reading in England for a hundred years or more.
The Reading War are over. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…
By Mike, Oct 6 2014 11:32AM
Out soon in paperback, a new picture book that tells a personal story - a journey through each Christmas in the life of a child as she grows up.
The pages of A Child At Christmas together create a stunning and evocative timeline of words and pictures that frame and capture the magic of childhood.
You are viewing the text version of this site.
Need help? check the requirements page.