The House of Commons education selection committee's investigation
into reading was published in May 2005. According to many of the
contributors, the problems of learning to read have finally been
solved… again. The holy grail is synthetic phonics. Unfortunately,
the committee was unduly influenced by people who were committed
to this method. They included the Reading Reform Foundation, Jolly
Phonics author Sue Lloyd, and Rhona Johnston, one of the authors
of the much-touted Clackmannanshire study that looked at synthetic
phonics teaching.
Why were these people, who are all synthetic phonics evangelists,
invited to give evidence, while others with a more critical view
of phonics teaching were not? What about authors of reading programmes
that have been just as successful as Jolly Phonics and headteachers
who have been effective in the teaching of reading without using
systematic phonics programmes? Why wasn't a single academic with
a main specialism in education and the teaching of English, rather
than in psychology, invited to contribute? The result is a lack
of proper critical attention to the important issue of teaching
and learning.
The TES and the select committee have both rightly raised queries
about the study's methodology. One thing that I would add is that
the review of the other research at the beginning of the report
is inadequate and in particular makes misleading claims about
the influence of child-centred education on reading methods. The
committee concluded that we need more research to look at the
effectiveness of synthetic phonics and analytic phonics.
Perhaps, before we waste public money, we should look at evidence
that has already been published. In a comprehensive report, the
American Reading Panel reviewed hundreds of studies, and found
that synthetic phonics was no better than other phonics approaches.
Despite a lot of research, we do not know how children's brains
work. On of the most questionable requirements of popular synthetic
phonics programmes is that children do not read books for the
first two or three months while they are learning their phonemes.
Nearly all reading researchers agree that reading a range of texts
is vital to consolidate reading skills. This is also essential
to properly assess reading development and to stimulate motivation
for reading.
Another question that the committee raised was the extent to
which the National Literacy Strategy Framework is informed by
research. In relation to phonetics, I concluded in a research
paper in 2000 that the evidence was finely balanced but showed
that phonics work should be concentrated on children aged five
and six; that the phonics objectives for Years 3 and 4 should
be removed; and that the NLS needed to be changed. I have consistently
argued since then in books and papers that the NLS needs to be
subject to a thorough review, something which the committee has
belatedly confirmed. If more government-funded research is needed,
it should be in relation to writing, which has suffered more than
reading under the NLS.
The aims of the curriculum need rethinking and rewriting. We
need a curriculum that seeks to build upon the motivation of pupils
and encourages them to develop interests and preferences and to
study these in depth from a very early age.
(TES, 13 May 2005)
80px.gif)
