So synthetic phonics are now officially approved. But will this superior system of teaching reading and writing actually be adopted in schools? Will it save us from the current situation in which 20 per cent of British adults are 'functionally illiterate' according to the Government itself? It must be doubted.
Here is a (slightly edited) email from Tom Burkard, the well-informed and always interesting educationalist. He reveals - at least it is news to me - the personal background to the change that comes from within Tony Blair's family. He describes the ineffective implementation he fears and a better way he recommends:
Ruth Kelly has executed a stunning U-turn on the National Literacy Strategy.Pressure had been growing ever since February 12. That is when the Scottish Office released the latest data from their trials of the teaching method known as 'synthetic phonics'. Pupils who were originally taught with this method in 1997 are now 3 1/2 years ahead in reading. These results are all the more remarkable in that the schools are located in a deprived rural area of Clackmannanshire, and that pupils from disadvantaged homes read just as well as their more favoured classmates. There are several other schools in Britain that have achieved similar, or even better, results through synthetic phonics.
However, ministers stoutly supported the official National Literary Strategy, despite pressure from Number 10 and a Commons Education Committee enquiry which was against the mandarins at the DfES. No doubt Ruth Kelly--like all recent Education Secretaries--had in mind the fate of poor John Patten, the last one to ignore the advice of his 'advisors'. Yet from her statements in defence of the NLS, there can be little doubt that Ruth Kelly is yet another 'true believer' in the entrenched orthodoxies of the educational establishment. On Thursday (June 2) the Sun published a photo of Kelly, apparently making her statement through clenched teeth.
There is no doubt that the change is a result of extreme pressure from Tony Blair, who elevated Andrew Adonis and appointed him as a junior minister in the DfES in order to get a grip on his insolent civil servants. It is an open secret that one of the Blair children was taught to read by a synthetic phonics tutor, and that he has long been impatient with official foot-dragging. However, it remains to be seen how things will work out.
Jim Rose has been appointed to conduct a study , one of the so-called 'three wise men' who (along with Robin Alexander and Chris Woodhead) wrote the 'Alexander Report', which was highly critical of extreme progressive orthodoxy. However, Rose is an experienced mandarin himself, and it remains to be seen how he will react to DfES pressure. Part of the problem is that some advocates of synthetic phonics are eager for the Government to impose synthetic phonics by dictat. This simply won't work since the only means of 'enforcement' currently at the Government's disposal is the Department For Education and Skills. This is the Department which has fought synthetic phonics tooth and nail ever since the first Scottish Office results were announced in 1998. Giving the task to the DfES would make as much sense as asking a defeated army to draw up the peace treaty - it really is that adversarial. Admittedly, it would be possible to create yet another quango with the remit of introducing synthetic phonics, and perhaps this will happen. But even then, it is almost impossible for ministers to think in terms of letting the market work. Trying to introduce synthetic phonics through command-and-control measures will work no better than current measures to restore discipline in our schools. There is only one way forward for Jim Rose: he must initiate trials of synthetic phonics, allowing schools to volunteer to try out different commercial synthetic phonics programmes. Rather than adhering to the current practice of getting all the 'experts' around a table and hashing out a compromise, these experts should simply get out there an do it. As I argued in my March 2 pamphlet (After the Literacy Hour: Let the best plan win! published by the Centre for Policy Studies), teachers need to see synthetic phonics working in other local schools. The best schools are always the ones which are open to new ideas, and these are the ones that should act as the shock troops for synthetic phonics. This whole affair has been a sorry fiasco, and it is to be hoped that ministers will start to consider a drastic curtailment of the DfES. The behaviour of those in charge of the NLS has been little short of criminal, and beyond question their incompetence has been demonstrated. It is true that a true market in education would produce some awful schools, but they wouldn't last long. In any case, this would be a lot better than the uniform awfulness that results from the meddling of bureaucrats.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Education
Comments (4)
TrackBack (28)
Comments
Absolutely.
The problem is not phonics vs. real books. Both have a place. You have to teach the mechanics of reading, and you teach an interest in books so that reading is not a chore - because not reading easily and confidently wrecks later education.
The problem is proscription. The curriculum is laughably proscriptive, and as ever, those doing it have no practical experience as teachers.
I don't teach it any more, but I had occasion to look at one of the KS3 IT modules.
It instructs what to do in every lesson, what the objectives are etc. It's not legally mandatory but it is in reality unless you are very confident.
Interestingly, it's a microcosm of Blairism. The task is to produce a very simple theatre booking system. But most of the work is "design" "making presentations" "feedback" "discussion" and very little is actually the core issue of producing a working theatre booking system to a specified set of requirements.
Rather like D&T, where you produce legions of pupils able to design a chair but unable to make it.
Posted by: Paul at June 7, 2005 09:38 AM
If Paul were right in stating that both phonics and real books have a place, other English-speaking countries would not have the same appalling rates of reading failure that we have. This belief is just as illogical as saying that both Gallileo and Ptolemy had a point. English people have real problems accepting that some things are just plain wrong.
As methods of teaching beginning reading, real books and synthetic phonics are mutually exclusive concepts. The confusion arises from the myth--assiduously promoted by progressive educators for almost a century--that reading is understanding. It is not. Reading is the ability to identify words. If you do not understand what you have read, you will not understand it if someone reads it to you. Reading comprehension, long the holy grail of progressive educators, is merely comprehension. Another myth that has been peddled by these people is that teaching children to decode words systematically (ie,teaching phonics) will somehow prevent them from understanding what they have read. This myth was comprehensively debunked by the late Jean Chall way back in 1967, but mere evidence does not deter the progressive educator. If you think about it, it is absolutely preposterous to think that teaching children to identify words accurately and automatically--the goal of synthetic phonics--could in any shape, manner or fashion prevent them form understanding what they have read.
Of course, once children have learned to read and spell words, then they should learn about literature and other subjects. This is what teachers are for. But this has nothing whatever to do with learning to decode and spell, which require very straight-forward behaviourist training. Confusing or conflating these functions with the purposeful or educative aspects of learning is exactly why the National Literacy Strategy has failed. Very few people (or reporters) have grasped that the reason why synthetic phonics works is because of what is DOESN'T do. In a synthetic phonics classroom, children are not ever taught whole words, and they are never taught to 'predict' words from context or other clues. It is precisely this woolly, mix 'n match approach which has confused the 1.2 million children who have been failed by the NLS.
All this said, synthetic phonics cannot be set in aspic, as the NLS attempted to do. Synthetic phonics is a theoretical approach to teaching reading. The exact means by which it is implemented can vary considerably, as there are many SP programmes on the market (including ours). We got most of our ideas from other people, and we hope that others will learn from us. I know most of my competitors personally, and (with one dreadful exception) we believe that our products can be continually improved. We are all teachers, which is why our products work so much better than the NLS--which was designed by 'experts'. Perhaps some day someone will discover a new approach that works much better than SP. But in the meantime, improvement can only come through open competition. Because information is the key to efficient markets, it is absolutely essential that the corrupt and invalid English SATs be replaced by simple and valid tests which can help teachers see how well various programmes are doing. The trick now is to convince Andrew Adonis to keep the DfES out of literacy altogether.
Posted by: tom burkard at June 8, 2005 09:05 AM
Tom, perhaps you're right. But then again, perhaps Paul is. I can't judge the best method from your arguments, but I'm quite capable of assessing the outcome.
So don't impose any system from the centre. Let competing providers convince parents that their outcomes are best. This way the parents don't have to become experts in method (just as when I buy a car I assess whch is the best car,and take no interest in the design and production method).
It's the monopoly provision and the centrally mandated methods that are the problem
Posted by: HJHJ at June 9, 2005 04:19 PM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2005/06/in_a_startling.php on line 325
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2005/06/in_a_startling.php on line 325
a more diverse, less centrally controlled system, where head teachers were allowed some freedom of method, many more such trials would be going on. The result would be a huge increase in the pool of evidence of what works. At the moment we have central diktat based on subjectivity and little evidence, which squeezes out innovation.
Can you imagine a surgeon being told by Whitehall how to take out your gall bladder!
Posted by: Ricky at June 6, 2005 07:52 PM