Could you ever imagine that a well-meaning adult, trying to teach a child to read, could be open to accusations of “child abuse” (Improve-Education.Org, 2007)? Little did I know that in attempting to help my (then toddler) son to decipher the letters and sounds of the alphabet, I had unknowingly stumbled into a long-running linguistic war.
The ‘Reading Wars’ is a metaphor used in Britain, Australia, and The United States of America to describe polarised views about how early years reading and writing should be taught. The conflicting ideologies situated on the opposing sides of no-man’s land, are ‘systematic phonics’ on one side and ‘whole language’ on the other. Over the last few decades, these views have become more contentious. The video – Phonics vs Whole word – produced by Improve-Education.Org (2007) claims that the supporters on one side of this debate are, “evil”, “wicked”, and “perverse”. As if that language isn’t extreme enough, it also declares that teaching a child to read using the ‘Whole word’ approach is, “child abuse”. Thank goodness I used phonics! You can hold off on that phone call to Social Services…..
Controversy about which approach to utilize in early years education continues to be hotly debated, with no overarching consensus between education, language experts and government policy.
What is systematic synthetic phonics?
The version of phonics mandated in the UK is called “systematic synthetic phonics, and it teaches children the sounds of letters in isolation and then coaches students to blend the sounds together” (Bowers, 2019). This allows individual letters and letter combinations (graphemes), to be related to units of sound (phonemes), which can then be assembled into words. The ‘whole language’ approach to literacy is analytical and focuses on “the development of children’s phonological awareness coupled with work on children’s capacity to draw analogies”, according to Dombey (1999, p.16), in her article in the literary magazine, Education 3 to 13. This approach teaches children to recognize individual words whilst experiencing whole texts, thereby providing more context. When Willingham states, in the Times Educational Supplement (2015, p.24), that “[t]he rival armies are entrenched and the battles vicious”, it begs the question: why is it so difficult for both sides to wave a white flag, call a ceasefire, and reach an amicable agreement in how to proceed?
The Rose Report (2006), recommended that synthetic phonics must be included in early reading instruction in English primary schools, following research in Clackmannanshire in Scotland in 2004 (Wyse and Styles, 2007, p. 35). This study claimed that “the synthetic phonics approach, as part of the reading curriculum, is more effective than the analytic phonics approach”, according to the researchers, Johnston and Watson, (2005, p.9; cited by Wyse and Styles, 2007, p. 38). Nick Gibb, School Standards Minister for the Department of Education in the UK at the time, accused those opposing the synthetic phonics approach as relying, “more heavily on emotion than evidence” and being “responsible for stifling human potential and negatively affecting life chances of countless children”, (Gibb, 2017).
Phonics testing
The UK government is so committed to the phonics approach that in 2012 it introduced the Phonics Screening Checks for children in Key Stage One, who are typically five-to-six years old. This view has been challenged by various voices, including the UK Literacy Association, who responded to Gibb’s comments by saying, “phonics is an essential part of learning to read but as a strategy for teaching reading, phonics is far from sufficient on its own”, (UKLA 2019). In his blog, Professor Jeffrey Bowers from the University of Bristol reached the conclusion that there is “little or no empirical evidence to support the conclusion that systematic phonics is best practice”, resulting from his studies of meta-analysis that have compared systematic phonics to methods that didn’t include any phonics at all, (Bowers, 2019).
‘Tough’ pronunciations [cough….]
The pronunciation of some English words can be notoriously difficult because of the many irregularities and alternative pronunciations that can be found in the English Language. Take, for example, the following words: ‘tough’, ‘though’, ‘plough’, ‘cough’, ‘through’, ‘thorough’. They all contain the same <ough> combination of letters, but try saying them out loud and you’ll notice that each one has a very different vowel sound, sometimes followed by a consonant sound (e.g. ‘cough’). Anyone learning to read phonetically would have to commit these words to memory in the same way that some other methods rely on, rather than relying on sounding out the different phonemes. Decoding unfamiliar words that don’t follow previously learnt, logical rules is problematic.
Is the phonics ‘one size fits all’ approach to acquiring the necessary skills to read and write the best way to proceed? The World Literacy Foundation (2015: cited by Castles et al, 2018, p.5), gives compelling reasons for the necessity to achieve good levels of literacy in the population, stating: “low literacy is a major contributor to inequality and increases the likelihood of poor physical and mental health, workplace accidents, misuse of medication, participation in crime, and welfare dependency”. This being the case, it seems that failing to teach children to read effectively is a legacy that affects the whole population. As government policy and leading academics cannot agree on one of the approaches discussed, then maybe it’s time to dig themselves out of the trenches and consider a more liberal way forward.
David Reedy from the UK Literacy Association, (2012), argued in a BBC feature article that a blended approach to the teaching of reading is required, and states that “reading should encompass a balance of teaching strategies including a systematic approach to phonics and other reading strategies, and a significant emphasis on children experiencing a wide range of texts”.
The argument for using a range of reading comprehension strategies is shared in the same article by Professor Maureen McLoughlin of the International Reading Association, (2012). McLoughlin claims that “[t]he goal of successful reading is comprehension […]” and that “students’ construction of meaning is enhanced” by using a repertoire of strategies.
Surely if we want to show our children that reading can be a pleasurable activity and encourage them to fully engage with, and comprehend a variety of texts, we need to call a truce in this war and make reading fun as well as strategic?
References
Bowers, J. (2019, April). The Reading Wars. Jeff Bowers.
Dombey, H. (1999). Picking a path through the phonics minefield, Education 3 to 13 27(1), pp. 12-21.
Gibb, N. (2017). Nick Gibb: reading is the key to unlocking human potential. Gov.UK
Gov.uk (2022). Phonics Screening Check.
Improve-Education.Org (2007). Phonics vs Whole Word.
McLoughlin, M. (2012, October 15).Viewpoints: Teaching children to read. BBC.
Reedy, D. (2012).Viewpoints: Teaching children to read. BBC.