From this point on, ‘real books’ were used to put the joy back into reading in the hope that with it, standards would improve.
The much publicised decline in literary standards of the 80’s, however, was largely attributed to the change in methodology and phonics was soon re-introduced to classrooms up and down the country. There was no obligation to teach children to read in this way, but teachers recognised its benefit as part of a wider reading strategy.
Phonics moves up the political agenda
In 2005 Jim Rose, a former Ofsted inspector, was asked by the then education secretary, Ruth Kelly, to conduct a review into the way children in England were taught to read and write following the high profile results of a trial using synthetic phonics in Scotland.
A seven-year study based on schools in Clackmannanshire, carried out by Professor Johnston and Dr Watson, concluded that use of synthetic phonics helped children to learn to read and spell faster than those not on the programme.
In the first phase, in 1997, children in their first year of schooling (Primary 1) who had been taught for 16 weeks using an experimental system of synthetic phonics were said to be seven months ahead of their peers in reading and nine months ahead in spelling.
Soon, more children were added to the programme until there were 300 of them, who were all followed to the end of their primary schooling.
The researchers reported that by then, children taught to read by synthetic phonics were: 3.5 years ahead of what was expected for their age in reading words; 1.75 years ahead of that expected for their age in spelling; and 3.5 months ahead of that expected for their age in comprehension. They also said the programme helped to level the playing field for learning to read between children from poor and better-off backgrounds and between boys and girls.
Rose’s research drew on evidence from practitioners, researchers, published reports and data, and submissions. An interim report, published in December that year, concluded that there should be a bigger and more systematic role for phonics in schools. His final recommendations - that phonics teaching should be enforced in the national curriculum - were published in 2006.
Kelly backed the recommendations, insisting that the Rose report proved that phonics would boost literacy levels: “This is a clear roadmap for reading, which draws on the experience of teachers and experts to show what works best for children in the classroom,” she said.
Academics and politicians were split; the Conservatives backed the decision having long called for a ‘back to basics’ approach in the classroom; while the Liberal Democrats felt it should be just one of the methods used and that teachers should have the freedom to decide how best to teach their pupils. Within the teaching community itself, some insisted that it taught any child to read almost any word quickly, while others saw it as a “one size fits all” approach by politicians, which was far removed from the realities of the classroom. Concerns were also raised over the validity of the Clackmannanshire report’s evidence, since there were variations in the way the research was carried out, the results were deemed by many as inconclusive. Since this report seemed to have inspired the Government to take action and issue a review that would change policy, phonics quickly became a very contentious issue.
Interestingly, Rose himself, while obviously backing the use of phonics, always seemed to stop short of insisting it was the ONLY way to teach early reading. In 2008 he said that it was “...the best demonstration of systematic practice. I don’t really see how children can get a foothold in reading unless they understand how the alphabet works and can do the coding and decoding. Anybody who thinks they will just discover that decoding system is really way off beam. But phonics isn’t the be-all and end-all. It’s essential but not sufficient.”
Phonics hits the headlines again
Back in July, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Education raised concerns that the coalition Government’s focus on phonics will actually contribute to a decline in literary standards.
Supported by the British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA), the APPG for Education published its report on ‘Overcoming the Barriers to Literacy’. Overall, teachers from secondary schools were more likely to identify that pupils had weak or very weak literacy skills than teachers from primary schools. 57 per cent of pupils in secondary schools were classed as having weak or very weak literacy skills. In comparison, only 39 per cent of pupils in primary schools are considered to have weak or very weak literacy skills.
The report is based on evidence from 584 teachers and educational stakeholders including the teachers’ unions, literacy associations, publishers and outreach organisations.
The report emphasises that literacy policy should focus on instilling a love of reading in order to increase children’s motivation, wellbeing and attainment. The APPG also found that literacy policy should not be the responsibility of the Department for Education alone. Social factors such as parental involvement and health issues – such as eye care – are significant contributors to children’s reading success.
As Fabian Hamilton MP, Chairman of the APPG for Education, commented, “The impact of illiteracy is profound: 60 per cent of prisoners have basic literacy difficulties. This is disproportionately high, and the UK will be facing a skills shortage if literacy standards do not improve dramatically.”
The government’s focus on systematic synthetic phonics is at odds with the views of many within the education community, who believe that it risks making reading a dull exercise for English classes. The report identified that ‘phonics’ and ‘reading’ are being used interchangeably by policymakers, but reading isolated words is not reading for meaning.
Many respondents also wanted to dispel the myth about how phonics is currently used. Most teachers already use phonics to teach reading, but they do so by blending phonics with other reading strategies.
However, for cash-strapped schools the incentive to take advantage of the matched funding offered for phonics products and training will push them in the direction of synthetic phonics. Schools must purchase resources from a small range of products, made available from only one source. This is in contrast to many teachers’ experience that a broad-ranging approach to literacy, alongside one-to-one tuition, is most effective. It also goes against the move towards school autonomy in other areas.
Mr Hamilton continues, “Literacy is the key to the curriculum. Pursuing phonics without considering whether pupils can comprehend what they’re reading, and without paying any attention to whether children enjoy reading, will switch children off. Learning to read – especially a complex language like English – cannot be reduced to a mechanical process.”
The APPG recommends that to raise literacy standards, a well-rounded reading culture needs to be encouraged. To achieve this, matched phonics funding should be re-directed so that schools are free to adopt the resources and programmes their pupils need (including the highly effective and valued one-to-one reading tuition). In addition, there needs to be: more in-depth teacher training; improved support for the transition between primary and secondary school; greater support for literacy difficulties at secondary schools; acknowledging the growing value of digital literacy, especially in motivating boys to read; and a community approach to literacy (including promoting libraries and parental involvement).
Schools Minister Nick Gibb said studies showed the systematic teaching of synthetic phonics was the best way to teach basic reading skills, especially to those aged five to seven. “It is vital that we focus on the reading skills of children early on in their lives and give those who are struggling the extra help they need to enable them to go on to enjoy a lifetime’s love of reading rather than a lifelong struggle”, he said, adding: “Schools have the option of applying for matched-funding to buy approved products and training to help them teach high-quality systematic synthetic phonics.”
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) has accused the government of adopting a “heavy-handed” approach and a “one-size-fits-all” policy.
Talking to Education Today, Ray Barker Director of BESA said: “Although it is to be applauded that schools are being provided with incentives to teach phonics, such funding should be provided direct to schools in order that they can purchase the phonics (and literacy) materials and training appropriate for them.”
It is clear that the case for phonics is justified as an effective means of teaching children to read, if blended with other methods. The uproar this time is that while the government is offering schools greater autonomy on the one hand, it is making decisions about how they teach and what materials they teach with on the other. Only time will tell if they have got it right.
