Can synthetic phonics be the key to teaching children how to read?

School in the 21st century is very different to school back in the olden days of the 20th. That may sound obvious, but many people can't seem to accept that times have changed. Just read the visitors to this blog. They're always mentioning the (better) ways in which they were taught, the (much improved) discipline and the inspirational teachers. It seems to me that a good number of people are wearing rose-tinted spectacles.

Yet it can - and often does - still come as a shock when you are thrown back into the education system, this time as a parent instead of a pupil. To put it simply, our children learn differently these days, not just because of technology, but because times, and teaching methods, have changed (as has the vocabulary used). Schools have literacy and numeracy hours, do their maths by partitioning, using numberbonds and numberlines and these days teach children to read via synthetic phonics.

Phonics, of course, is not new, but it went out of favour sometime ago. Now it is back, recommended highly by Sir Jim Rose in his review of early reading.The Government even has its own programme, Letters and Sounds, which many schools follow (often because they feel obliged, and some say are pressurised, into doing so). However, schools are actually free to choose to follow any synthetics phonics programme they choose to.

I wonder if you are baffled by all this. When my daughter started Reception, I was. I had no idea how she was being taught to read and couldn't understand how it worked. Yes, I soon realised that she was saying letter sounds instead of the names of letters (eg sssss instead of S), but that was about as far as it went.

But actually, that, in a nutshell, is what synthetic phonics is all about. It's all to do with using the pure sounds created by each letter, and then blending them to create words. It's based on the 44 sounds (phonemes) which make up English (letters and small groups of letters such as "sh" or "oo"), and gives children small blocks of language to build on. This way they should be able to "decode" words in future.

It's taken me a while, and I've been helped by chatting to some great experts, but I now have more idea of what this all means, and find myself pretty much converted. Obviously, the system needs to be properly taught, and teachers need to be properly trained to teach it, but I think it makes sense. And it seems to have had some remarkable results (take a look at Jackie Long's Newsnight reports for one example).

There are various different forms of phonics taught in schools and it may be worth asking your school which programme it follows. Other than the government programme, some of the best known are Jolly Phonics, with its accompanying CD and songs, and Ruth Miskin's Read Write Inc.

Miskin, a former headmistress, is evangelical about phonics and about teaching children to read. "I see our writing system as a code," she says. "What I want the child to understand is that a letter is a speech sound written down. My big thing is that every child should learn to read, but you've got to have the sound knowledge before you can ask a child to read you a word."

This is all very different to "look and say", the older method, which seemed to think that we would learn to read by seeing a collection of letters and just remembering it. A major problem here was that it meant children were not really being given the tools to decode new words. When I now watch my son, who's in Reception, work words out via how the letters sound (yesterday it was j-u-m-p), I think it's incredible.

Miskin has trained thousands of teachers with her system and is unimpressed by the government's programme. This is not, she emphasises, because she just wants to promote hers (she's positive about Jolly Phonics too), but because she doesn't think it's been thought through properly, nor that teachers have been trained in it to the right extent. But she still thinks that we're on the right lines, and that teaching children something which isn't abstract can only help them in the future.

We still have thousands of children who find learning to read problematic. Can this, properly taught, be the answer?

Read the government's key guidance on phonics and early reading

More on the Miskin programme and Jolly Phonics

Oxford University Press publish some fantastic Read Write Inc phonics books. They tell parents exactly how to use them and are perfect for new readers. I'm not that impressed by the Oxford Treehouse books (at least the early ones) and have found these to be much better.

Read School Gate:

How to help your child to read

Do schools need libraries and librarians?

What's a numberline?

Comments

[Sarah F]

I learned to read using phonics - back in the 70s.
I have had to learn the different ways children are taught maths these days but think that number lines are fantastic.
Not so sure about the number of acronyms for things like health, social studies (wot??) and R.E....

Yes, its different. The key for me is to be a nosey cow and get offspring to SHOW me what he's learned.

More of a shock to realise - via 12 year old stepson visiting with homework - that kids think copying and pasting is the same as digesting information and using it to answer a question. That session of "helping" uninterested almost-teen was a slog and I'm not sure it did any good.

[Cathy]

I'm sceptical about anyone who claims to have found the holy grail (or the ONE way of teaching reading). Too often this results in adults getting very passionate (that's the polite word for it) about the method they believe in, rather than being pragmatic about actual children's actual needs. Phonics is definitely a good thing but I have encountered children who progressed better with 'look and say'. A mixture of methods is definitely best. Children will progress faster if they can pick up phonically irregular or advanced words as they go (for instance, in Shared Reading using a big book I used to get them to pick out the phonics they knew, but I'd have to tell them characters' names etc).

[Sally O]

Usborne are bringing out a new series called Very First Reading next March which are based on synthetic phonics method, for beginner readers. So it's something we are supporting. There will be more information on synthetic phonics on the quick-links website too. It's all a work in progress at the moment though.

[Malcolm McLean]

I've seen some of these phonics books.
The problem is that they try to turn reading into a discipline. It is not. It is a skill, and not an especially difficult one.

Phonics is a heuristic. If ypu know the sonds as well as the names of the letters, and sound the letters out, you can usually make a pretty good guess at the word. Occasionally because of the vagaries of English spelling you will get it wrong. There arer also a handful of semi-regular rules (eg an e on the end means you say the name rather than the sound of the preceding vowel) which are worth learning.
But that's it. It's just a technique of the initial stages of getting through unfamiliar text. Glossy books based around letter patterns and themes simply make reading appear far more difficult than it is.

[Helena]

I've never really understood the fuss about teaching reading, but then maybe that's because it came easily to me, and to my son, and to me that's 'normal' rather than to someone who was a 'slow reader' or whatever.

But it really does seem to me to be a complete no-brainer that children are taught that letters have both a name and a sound, and that when we read we use the sounds of the letters, and that those sounds can be combined (but not always!)(unless you're Welsh, of course, ha ha!!!).

Why is so hard for them to understand that you decode words by sounding out the letters in the word, making allowances for combo-sounds like 'sh', not to mention that English plays loads of tricks and can change the sounds in different words ('cough' and 'bough') and mimic the sounds in different spellings ('bow' and 'bough') etc.

Then, after a while, you become familiar with words, and can recognise the whole word and don't need to sound it out. And Hey Presto, you're reading!

Personally, I think every teacher who teaches children to read should have to learn, as an adult and student teacher, how to read a non-Latin script language such as Greek or Russian, so they realise afresh just what is involved in learning to read a phonetic script.

As for Synthetic Phonics, isn't the big barrier that it's a patented, commercial system for which the state will have to pay to use? If so, it seems the biggest waste of money since the Millenium Dome (or the Afghan War, the Royal Family, the man brought in on £100,000 pa to sort out MP's expenses, etc etc etc etc.)

[oldandrew]

"A mixture of methods is definitely best."

All the evidence is that it is not. The debate is over. You lost. Get over it. What is embarrassing is that so much harm was done to so many children before this country discovered that synthetic phonics was best, something that had been clear since at least the fifties as a result of the disastrous US experience with "look and say".

[Cathy]

Helena: 'I've never really understood the fuss about teaching reading'

LOL! Come and walk a couple of miles in my shoes, then!

[Cathy]

Malcolm McLean: Yes, I quite agree. I think we're re-inventing the wheel, but I've seen that done many, many times ;)

Going a bit off-subject, perhaps, I've always remembered the little boy I tried to teach to read about ten years ago. By the time I got hold of him he was about Year 4. He knew all his sounds, was able to blend and had the appropriate sight vocabulary. He could. however, only read one book. The staff colluded in the pretence that he was reading it, but of course he'd memorised it. It was the ORT one about the trumpet (I forget the title) and for some reason he liked it. I never got to the bottom of why he couldn't quite make the jump into reading - maybe it was his background? Dad was in prison for drug dealing, Mum was on the game and Gran had some dodgy friends (the child ended up being shot when he was playing with a gun Gran was 'looking after'. Not fatally, thank goodness).

[Maggie]

"As for Synthetic Phonics, isn't the big barrier that it's a patented, commercial system for which the state will have to pay to use?"

Not at all. Synthetic Phonics is the name given to the principle of teaching children the way that the sounds which comprise English words are represented by a letter, or letters, and how to decode (sound out) the written word and blend the sounds together to produce (synthesise) the spoken (or silently 'read') word. There are a number of excellent commercial programmes available but there is nothing 'patented' about them. If the 'state' hadn't been so obstinate about clinging to its preferred 'mixed methods' it could have introduced its own synthetic phonics programmes, written by the very best programme developers, years ago.

I don't understand the fuss about teaching reading, either. I do it every day, in a mainstream school, with 11 & 12 year olds who *haven't* been taught by synthetic phonics principles.

The mystique surrounding teaching reading was developed by the idiots who discarded phonics teaching and then had to think up an explanation for why very large numbers of children were failing to learn to read by their methods.

[Sheila]

It is an absolute scandal that so few primary teachers have proper training in how to teach reading (including synthetic phonics). As a result kids turn up in secondary school unable to read even very simple texts not because they haven't the capacity, but simply because they haven't been taught.
Phonics only went out of fashion in the UK - they continued to be used in Ireland and the US. The UK education system is shockingly faddy. The latest buzzword or a pet project of the minister can be introduced without consultation or trial studies and totally change policy.

[Peter]

And Phonics is how the congenitally deaf learn to read?

Oh. My mistake. No it isn't. And so phonics is NOT the only/best way to learn to read, as proven for hundreds of years. It is ONE way of learning to read.

[Cathy]

As expected, this discussion has roused emotions very quickly! I'm not sure how a belief that a mixture of methods is best (moderation in all things being the safest course in the classroom) has been twisted into a conviction that phonics is BAD ... there's nowt so queer as folks - especially on the internet.

It would be very interesting if posters were to come clean about vested interests, don't you think? I'm rather suspicious about one or two here. Being a teacher, I'm obviously up to my neck in a plot to corrupt and subvert the nation's under-eights ;)

[Helena]

My objecvtion is to paying any commercial organisation for a 'reading scheme' of any kind. If synthetic phonics is simply the name for this method of teaching reading, then fine, but ANY 'commercial method' (ie, you have to pay to use it) should be chucked to the bottom of the ocean.Just teach chldren to read without making such a stupid fuss about it all.

As to why SP went 'out of fashion', well, I guess it's that old, familiar scenario - along come a bunch of shiny new brats (ie, new teachers, new teachers-of-teachers) saying 'oh, anything our parents did is rubbish, WE can do MUCH better' - arrogant little idiots.

Cathy - but surely simmply don't listen to any debate/fuss etc - just teach! (Which is what I'm sure the actual classroom teachers are doing, while all the non-classroom educationists are happily zooming off to conferences-on-expenses to endlessly debate and research the issue....)(anything to get them out of the classroom!!!!)

[Cathy]

Helena: LOL again! Oh, if only I could! There's hardly any work at the moment - all the schools I've rung say they're using TAs because of budgetary restraints - d'oh. But you're right. All right-minded teachers are getting on with it right now this minute (sob).

I for one would rather be IN the classroom. The few years I spent observing students on teaching practice were mind-numbingly boring. Not the students' fault - I'm just not known for my patience!

[Debbie]

Where we live in Australia they have been using phonics teaching for years. Having seen my 6 yr old daughter learn the system and is now reading like a demon, can spell almost anything and make an attempt to sound out any word she comes across, I heartily support the system. We use Jolly Phonics which is excellent. My 5 year old is now learning the sounds and is already starting to read and write, by sounding out the words as she goes. Once they get to blended sounds it all seems to clik into place and off they go. They also have the 100 sights words they learn and now they are learning about the strange anomalous words and spellings.

Personally I think it is an excellent system and the proof is in the pudding with my kids

[Leah]

I taught my son to read at home very early using JP - it's a fantastic system and anyone who has followed the debate and read the research will know that 'a mixture of methods' is NOT best, and the failure of so many children to learn to read is down to this sort of dogged, stubborn 'I know best' sort of thinking. I am very glad my children go to a school which teaches reading properly - my daughter is not quite such a whizz at reading as my son, and she is not only learning to read, but enjoying the process too.

[Jos]

I've seen synthetic phonics work for my two girls, who are both very strong readers with matching copmrehension - but what worries me a little bit about the system is just how it manages the transition from 'sounding out' to whole word recognition, which is how adults read. With my daughters this seemed to happen quite suddenly, at which point they simply stopped sounding out anything at all, developed a reading age 2 to 3 years ahead of their chronological age and were allowed to abandon the various reading scheme books in favour of what they called 'proper books'.
Obviously I was very lucky - how is this essential transition made or encouraged to happen as part of the programme of teaching synthetic phonics?
And Cathy - I completely agree with you that there is no one system that works for absolutely everyone. The vast majority - probably, but there will always be those for whom a different method is the only one that works and those alternative methods should not be lost, or discounted as 'trendy'.

[Cathy]

Jos: Thanks - very thought-provoking! I think the 'real books' movement was flawed in that it assumed that beginning readers would do what experienced readers do (just as you describe) and recognise whole pages of whole words. It didn't help that it was introduced in a chaotic way - I should know, dear heavens.

I can't answer your question as I don't get the chance to work through the later stages of SP schemes - maybe someone else can answer that.

I'd just like to ask (somewhat tentatively) those who are so insistent that I'm wrong about mixing methods (which worked for my mother for thirty-odd years and for me when I was a class teacher): if children only learn to read by the phonic method, why is it that so many extremely young children can read their own names? Most first names are phonically complex if not wholly irregular. I could read the word 'Catherine' by the age of three - why was that?

[David Vinter]

I have no idea how I learned to read, except I started aged just 3, it was wartime, and I was taught the basics by two ten year old girls. I thought it was fun getting to know new things. I could read HG Wells by the time I was 9. I guess we would all get jailed nowadays.

[Kim]

Cathy, I'm sure you're right, and on another blog I visit, one of the mum mentioned her daughter could read some very long words but not short, simple ones, and I assume that's to do with recognising the shape of very long words on the page. So what you say makes sense to me - yes, kids need to understand the sounds different letters make and how they fit together but when you're confronted with longer words it must sometimes be a case of thinking "I've seen that before and I remember what it is."

[Cathy]

Kim: Thanks. Yes, that sums up what I'm inclined to think. Perhaps we need to distinguish between beginning readers, who tend to read slowly and self-consciously, from more skilled ones, who seem to do it all almost unconsciously. I'm sure you'll have had that experience where you're caught up in a story and realise that there was a typo several paragraphs back! It's as if your eyes are ahead of the brain.

I don't pretend to know much about the technicalities of how we learn to read, but I do know that it's an incredibly complex process, however easily some of us learn to do it. Just like walking - which I couldn't do till I was nearly 2. Imagine my parents' shame.

I know I'm going to continue getting shot down in flames, but all the research in the world in favour of phonics will never convince me that there's no merit in look and say. I've taught quite a few children to read by mixed methods. And if other people round here can generalise from their own experience, so can I, so nerrr! ;)

[richard bolam]

One has to be very careful with educational research- it often works with obtaining eveidence to support your conclusion (which you have already decided upon). The Rose Report did that-it ignored any evidence about the success of othe rmethods.
Having said that, having learnt to read with SP, it does work for many, many children but not all. We must not close our eyes to that. It is accepted that people learn in many different ways (VAK, multiple intelligences) but we do not fully understand about all aspects of the learning process; after all, we are all different.
One problem with SP is that not all books produced for SP are really suitable. SP needs repitition and some do not allow for this. The books I read as part of the learning process were ridiculed as being boring and repetitive (Janet and John). The same for my daughter (SP in early 90s- Peter and Jane).
At the end, do not be dogmatic. To teach effectiviely you have to be open-minded to methods-despite what Govt, Ofsted, Local Authorities, Inspectors, Advisors, Experts, Teacher Trainers (don't get me started on them!) say.

[Cathy]

Richard: The trouble is, young teachers don't have the experience to be fully open-minded so they have to rely on someone else's views. So we then have the cycle we've had - successive ideas find favour with the decision-makers - they are fed to trainees - they then teach their pupils accordingly, for better or worse. It's only when the next trend comes along that they have the experience to make informed comparisons.

So, parents, wouldn't you rather have your children taught by a lovely, experienced (albeit expensive) teacher? End of commercial break.

[Skelly]

Different methods for different children, I say.

When my children started Reception, they could read simple words. I had also gone to the Car Boot Sales and purchased as many Peter and Jane books as I could find. These served two purposes: I learned to read with these books and it worked for me (and I'm not a fan of the new reading books), and it took me back to my youth. The Car Boot sales have also furnished me with many, many Ladybird Traditional Tales (non-PC) books!

[Cathy]

Skelly: I learned with them, too. I'm busily hinting to anyone who'll listen that I'd love one of those 'Ladybird' mugs for Christmas. My favourite was the shopping one - those 1950s streets with awnings and shop windows!

I think nearly all children could learn to read at home with almost any books if they had nice, caring, relaxed parents. Don't tell anyone I said that as it's backed up by no research at all. But when you read biographies of people of yore learning to read from the family Bible or whatever - well, I can't help wondering if motivation isn't half the battle.

[Jos]

Cathy,

'I think nearly all children could learn to read at home with almost any books if they had nice, caring, relaxed parents.'

So true! My parents taught me and my sister to read at age 3 because we were driving them mad asking what things said. I think if it's driven by the child it will just work, only parents these days are too busy/insecure/intimidated by so-called experts to give it a go.

I did find though that not all schools can cope with taking in children who are already fluent readers. My first primary certainly couldn't, so I ended up in a lovely Montessori school that took it in its stride. This was in Holland - I suspect it's no different over here so communication with Reception teachers is key.

[Cathy]

Hi Jos! I gather that's the case here and I'm not sure why. I've seen it suggested here that some schools/Reception teachers don't approve or feel threatened by such children; in some cases I think there's a certain amount of (shall we say) ego-clashing going on... In others, it may be a genuine lack of resourcefulness on the teacher's part. I'd be grateful for a few early readers - it does take the pressure off! IMO all primary teachers should know the nuts and bolts of teaching and developing reading so as to be able to teach late starters and very early ones appropriately. I just think it comes down to the usual problem - too many other things to do. Reading definitely should be the top priority - I can't believe anyone will disagree with that?!

[Skelly]

Cathy: I just love those Ladybird books! In fact, at 9 years old, I got my son to read the ones we have over the school holiday recently. My favourite one was the Tootles the Taxi! I agree with you about the 1950's streets and awnings! My daughter is 11 years old and is still not tiring of reading them - along with her older books, of course.

Motivation is also a key issue when getting children to learn to read. I sit with mine each day and they read to me/dad and then at bedtime by themselves. It breaks my heart when I see some parents who just couldn't be bothered to help their children read. It is a lovely time of day when everyone is relaxed and we can read together.

[Shaded]

Phonics is the way to go. It makes them comfortable with new words as they learn to sound out. My son's school uses the recognition model and he was struggling, so I bought a phonics book called The Butterfly Book and he improved dramatically and loves to read now.

[Diana]

Korean is a non Latin script and is completely phonetic so I could decipher what was on the bus/ newspaper headline but was none the wiser having only very very basic spoken skills. Having learnt to read English comprehension is all important for children, so if you're not happy with your knowledge of the school's method of teaching and think you'll confuse your child, then discuss the characters, the plot and foster love of books by reading to your child.

[Another mum]

I am sure that it must be easier to teach a child to read who enjoys being read to, and agree that the "starter" books my son was put through at age 6 were hideous - very PC and plot-free.

I'm also interested that Cathy could recognise her name at age 3 ... I'll never forget my son at that age, seeing a "no loading" sign (between 8am and 6pm) and saying "look mummy - m for Matthew". We spent the rest of the day looking for "m"s in road names, shop names etc, and he picked up reading pretty quickly after that, I think, because he'd "cracked the code" - he'd made the connection between the symbol, the letter, and reading.

[Maggie]

I have read many of these 'debates' over the past few years and the responses are completely predictable! Lots of opinions from people who have only their own, or their children's, experience to go by and some spirited defence of 'mixed methods' from teachers who plainly haven't taught using synthetic phonics.

What we never hear is the voices of the people who have FAILED to learn to read by Look & Say, Whole Language, Real Books or Mixed Methods, some 20% of the population at a conservative estimate (that is one person in five). Because, of course, they can't actually read the article which has provoked this debate, nor can they write a response to give their viewpoint.

Just a few points:
1) The history of written language shows quite clearly that in English, and many other languages, the written word is constructed by 'encoding' the individual sounds which comprise the word by means of a letter or letters. It is completely logical that the reverse process should be used to 'decode' words for reading. There are very few individuals who cannot learn this.

2) Personal experiences and beliefs are not very relevant in the grand scheme of things when research into reading and instruction methods over that past few decades has clearly shown that the greatest number of children learn to read effectively when taught systematically and explicitly how to use their knowledge of letter/sound correspondences to 'decode' written words for reading and 'encode' spoken words for spelling.

3) The Rose Report was based on both research evidence and empirical evidence from schools which use synthetic phonics (the evidence is cited in the Rose Report for those who want to read it). Which is quite unusual, really, as all the other methodologies were introduced on the strength of no evidence at all.

4) It is grimly amusing that the word 'commercial' is used to denigrate synthetic phonics programmes while no-one turns a hair at the millions of pounds which have been made by publishers of reading schemes to support mixed methods etc. And by the vast industry which has grown up around the remediation of children who have been failed by those methods.

To say that deaf people can't learn to read with 'phonics' is as daft as saying that they can't learn to speak because they can't hear speech. They can be taught by the same principles of decoding and encoding sounds, it's just not a letter/SOUND correspondence to be learned but a letter/mouth shape (think lip reading) correspondence.

Fialure to learn to read is one of the most devastating things that can happen to an individual living in a text rich society. Ensuring that the maximum possible number of children learn to read is too important to be left to unevidenced methods and personal opinion.

[Malcolm McLean]

"Ensuring that the maximum possible number of children learn to read is too important to be left to unevidenced methods and personal opinion."

If you need to be trained how to teach children to read (I'm talking about normal children, not deaf or dyslexic) then I think you need to question whether teaching is the right profession for you.

[Maggie]

This method has been in use for generations. Before the egomaniac Miskin woman decided to rename it and call it after herself, it was called Look and Say. My schoolteacher mother taught using it in the 50s, so did my aunts. Before that both my schoolteacher grandmothers used it. The only thing that's new about this method is the silly name.

[Kim]

Maggie, I'm a bit puzzled by your last comment. I thought "look and say" was the method that all the phonics people were criticising, ie it's a way of learning to recognise whole words rather than sounding them out.

[Skelly]

Maggie, I agree with you that failure to learn to read is devastating in this society. What I find shocking is when some idle parents don't bother helping their children. Parental input and follow on is vital. If children see you enjoying reading, they are likely to follow suit, providing there is no difficulty like dyslexia. What reading method works for one will not necessarily work for another. I speak for my children, who picked it up easily, and for my friend's child, who battled. Both our children were taught using JP, but my friend's child ended up going onto a different programme and is reading like there's no tomorrow!

[JANE]

I'd like to add a personal experience which I think is interesting. My children (English mum, Spanish father) were taught to read from age 4-5 in Spanish primary schools where phonics methodology was considered the one and only correct approach - bear in mind that Spanish is 100% phonetically spelt. Although we always spoke English together, I was nervous about 'teaching' any reading skills in English which could interfere with this (not sure if I was right, but anyway...) so limited myself to lots of reading aloud, not specific 'learn-to-read' books, but anything we had. The children are bilingual so could cope with Beatrix Potter, AA Milne etc as well as more modern texts. The result of this was that they learnt to read in English. With the eldest it 'happened' without me - or him I think- being aware of it, and with the other two pretty much the same. As far as I am aware they never de-coded - although reading in Spanish they did, and had been taught at school that each letter has a single value (not even different vowel sounds in Spanish, just a few diphthongs with one spelling rule each). All three kids, by 7 y.o., had equivalent reading skills in English and Spanish.
I didn't think about it at the time as I also learnt to read 'naturally'. I put it down to their learning English reading as it were as 'language' (which we pick up naturally through exposure, being able to deal with increasingly more complex chunks as we progress) whereas Spanish was learnt as a mechanical skill.
I don't have any axes to grind but would rather believe that there are lots of ways than that there is one failsafe method.

[Cathy]

Jane: You're right - that is really fascinating! I learnt to read 'naturally' and so did my eldest child. I remember her starting to read - it was with 'Farmer Duck', which I read night after night. She began by joining in the repeated bits ('How goes the work?' 'Quack!' said the duck) and then took over. At that point I didn't teach her the sounds. I didn't need to, because she just asked what words were, once she knew what a printed word was. She remembered them with no problem.

All of which leads me to wonder whether 'look and say' is a method that works with confident children who have lots of positive experiences with books. I do take Maggie's point about all the children who don't learn via that method and I'm sure phonics is more 'teacher-proof' and foolproof ... but I'm still not willing to ignore the fact that some children DO learn by look and say.

If I had any clout I'd make sure teachers knew all the methods and how to decide which to apply and when. When I started out I heard every child read individually at least three times a week; I got to know their style pretty intimately and knew what to do with them.

[Maria B]

Phonics seems the obvious way to learn as you can then read any word, but as some posters have said, it doesn't work for all. Perhaps it's about having a musical ear.

But the discipline thing is different. Way back in the fifties there was strict discipline in my class. It was easy. We were beaten. With sticks. Don't forget that little fact when extolling the old system.

[Maggie D]

"This method has been in use for generations. Before the egomaniac Miskin woman decided to rename it and call it after herself, it was called Look and Say. My schoolteacher mother taught using it in the 50s, so did my aunts. Before that both my schoolteacher grandmothers used it. The only thing that's new about this method is the silly name.

Posted by: Maggie | 11 Nov 2009 03:57:06"

I would like to make it clear anyone reading these posts that the above post is nothing at all do do with me (I posted the longer message at 20.49.22). I don't know what Ruth Miskin has done to upset this poster but I certainly do not agree with her judgement of Ruth in any way whatsoever.

2 facts.
1) Ruth did not 'invent' the name 'synthetic phonics'; I have seen it in 19th century books on teaching reading.

2) No-body who knows about synthetic phonics would claim it is a 'new' method (see those self same 19th century teaching manuals); the epithet 'new' is applied mostly by journalists who know nothing at all of the history of teaching reading.

I really don't see that the fact that a very effective method of teaching reading is being revived is anything to get angry about.

[Ged C]

I don't know why anyone would bother to post at 4am with inaccurate information that adds nothing to the discussion. Synthetic Phonics instruction is the antithesis of 'Look and Say'. Our written language is an Alphabetic Code and synthetic phonics gradually teaches that Code and provides practice in the necessary underlying skills.
Around 70% of children learn to read by a sort of process of osmosis or with a little help.
20%-30% of children have difficulty - they come from all classes including those from book-rich homes. Look and Say might get them to a reading ago of 7 or 8, but no further.
It is this category of child who desperately need the logic, focus and structure of synthetic phonics teaching.Now many are getting it - although there are pockets of resistance and no accountability for teachers who continue to ignore evidence-based teaching.
Thank goodness we have such superb programmes and people like Ruth Miskin and Sue Lloyd of Jolly Phonics who have worked over years to enable ALL the children in their care to read.

[Cathy]

Ged C: 'Around 70% of children learn to read by a sort of process of osmosis or with a little help.
20%-30% of children have difficulty - they come from all classes including those from book-rich homes. Look and Say might get them to a reading ago of 7 or 8, but no further.
It is this category of child who desperately need the logic, focus and structure of synthetic phonics teaching.'

Thanks for that! I've no idea whether you're a teacher or not but you have managed to say what I was stumbling towards. I'd be wary of saying 'osmosis', myself, as it sounds a bit woolly, but then reading is quite a mysterious process and I know what you mean.

Thanks to Maggie to clearing up a mystery! And I'd like to make it clear (should anyone care) that I for one certainly can see the importance of regular and systematic teaching of phonics. I just struggle with the concept of any one answer as I've been down that road so often!

I wonder if perchance RM is being condemned for her erstwhile connection with a certain C Woodhead?

[Helen]

A mixture of methods can work very well - not all children are the same. My son, for example, uses phonics (they did Jolly Phonics), but he uses the "whole word" principle far more (which the ORT books use, on the whole); he will sound a word out but he prefers to ask you, then he learns the word off by heart and knows it for next time. He's 7 and he and another boy do their literacy work together away from the rest of the class because they are so far ahead of the others. (Interesting that it's 2 boys - it's quite nice, given that it's always said that girls are better at reading than boys). Anyway, I don't see how phonics can be a single solution in English - it's not a phonetic language. In German or Finnish or Spanish I am sure it works very well, but in English you have to be able to learn the exceptions as well.

[mummy almighty]

Things change way too often, writing style, phonics, reading schemes etc etc. Why can't it be simplified so that parents can supplement learning at home??

[Phobos Star]

I remember learning to read (in the mid 80s). I learned by remembering whole words and applying them to other books. I don't recall learning phonics. I could read independently by the age of 2, so it must have been right for me!

I also worked as an LSA a few years ago, and used the 'Jolly Phonics' series of books to help teenagers with literacy problems. That seemed to work for them very well. I personally think a mix is the 'right' way.

[K Kuhlemann]

When I was first explained that English children are taught to read by "look and say" I was first horrified, then thought, "ah-hah". To my mind it explains why so many English people struggle very badly with spelling and have this almost pathological fear of multi-syllabic words. They were never actually taught how to decode language! It would be like teaching maths by telling children what the results of equations are and leaving them memorise the answers over time, without teaching them how to actually work out the equations themselves.

[Jenny]

Just to add to the mix as I can't see it mentioned in any of the comments....if anyone has a child who is finding reading difficult buy a book called Toe by Toe, and work slowly through it with your child. It may take a year or more but the results are well worth it. It's also suitable to use with adults who have never learnt to read.

[Philippa]

It's a bit of a faint memory now, but I'm SURE that's how I was taught to read in the early 80's ... only then it came with the not-so-snappy-title of "break the word down into sounds". Strikes me that someone has done a bit of judicious rebranding!

[M]

I think it depends on the child. Look and Say can work better on a child who is a visual learner i.e. one on the autistic spectrum. Having said that my 6 year old son is high funtioning autistic/ADHD and is still struggling even being taught both methods. My youngest learnt all his phonics sounds at 2 1/2 in 2 weeks. He is a natural early reader, he has no problems whatsoever. I don't think there is an easy one size fits all answer, although I think, long term, phonics is probably a much better way.

[Anne K]

Just a little note to anyone reading these comments in tears - not many children are ready to learn to read at age 2 or 3, or even 4 or 5. I live in Germany, where children are expected to *start* learning to read when they start school at around age 6. My daughter learned to read early, at 4-5, with help from me, but also apparently by magic, whereas my son, with the same help, recognised letters but did not "click" with reading until he started school at almost 7 years of age.
German is very phonetic, so children are not taught to read words by sight, just phonetically. I'm English and can spell better in German than my German husband; I've often wondered if it is because I am used to a non-phonetic spelling system. In English, if you relied entirely on phonetics you would not even get past the days of the week or "one, two, three".

[Malcolm McLean]

"Anyway, I don't see how phonics can be a single solution in English - it's not a phonetic language."

Exactly. The spelling bears a strong relationship to the sound, but not a perfect one. So the method is "sound out and guess". Often you can guess an unknown word by a mixture of spelling cues and context.
(In fact we confuse vocabulary with "reading age". When I had those tests at primary school I was always eventually stopped, not because I couldn't read the text, but because I knew a word only from written material and didn't know how it was pronounced.)

[Sarina]

The only thing that matter is that the child learns to read as young as possible -- children that learn too late to read and count not only waste valuable time, but the window of opportunity closes before the age of 6. After that age, it's hard work and the time lost is never caught up afterwards.

[John Rabson]

I learned to read at my mother's knee. Her formal education stopped when she was 14.

And no-one has mentioned ITA (puts hard hat on and dives under table).

[M]

Sarina,
It might interest you to know that Stephen Hawking didn't learn to read till he was 8 years old! He blames his school, but still. From the Channel 4 website. And what about those adult learners who were featured on a recent series about Adult illiteracy. Some of them had businesses, but they somehow managed to bluff their way through life hiding the fact that they couldn't read, but learn they did. Amazing. I don't think there is a "window" for reading - reading is an abstract construct. We are not born to read.

[Anne K]

Sarina, I disagree that "the window of opportunity closes before the age of 6". As I said above, in Germany, children do not start school until age 6. People believe that children are not ready to start learning until that age, and most children do not start reading before school. If a child is ready and wants to start reading early, it's fine, but parents shouldn't be told that their toddlers have to read - it's an unnecessary worry for them, and children should enjoy it, not be pressured into it when they aren't ready.

[Old mum.]

Phonics is a very good method for learning to read for any child.I am an optometrist who sometimes comes across dyslexic children,they appear to be greatly helped by learning to read phonetically.

[Diana]

I teach adult literacy and dyslexic adults of all ages ,and most tell me that had failed at school by the age of 7- says a lot about our education system whichever method/s are used.

[Sarina]

AnneK, most German children can already read (or used to be able to) when they enter school, in my class we all could and were started off on cursive writing in the first week, there was not one child that could not read at all. I remember it all very well,on my first day, I was given the cursive writing exercise book and we started there and then to fill it, no-one had t be informed what an 'A, B, C... Z' was, no, the required task was how to draw it beautifully with a fountain pen, 4 entire pages per letter. That was in 1970.

Being trained in letters and numbers just kind of happened in my case, but that of course is only possible if the child is nurtured daily for hours 1-1 by an adult who is highly motivated, instead of being parked somewhere to 'play' alone or in a nursery all the time.

And some people survive being left to fester and learning to read late, but because it's a skill that you need in order to understand more, losing precious time in school where you will not get the 1-1 study time that you need to learn the basics efficiently loses you much time. Prof. Hawkings obviously had a lot of talent to spare and found it easy to catch up, but many children end up stunted by this approach, and that is not OK.

Adults who learn to read later on life of course are not stupid (reading used to be rather optional for most of history) but think of what they could have achieved had they had a proper education!

[Pauline Meredith-Yates]

Some posters may have imperfect understanding of the nature of synthetic phonics. It is not a matter of assigning a a sound to each letter - this clearly won't work - try "through" !. An effective synthetic phonics system will teach that "th" codes the sound /th/ "r" is /r/ and "ough" is /oo/ ("" spelling //sound). Synthetic phonics tuition can produce astounding improvement in children teens and adults. But be prepared for anger as the teens and adults want to know - why didnt anyone tell me this before! For a full understanding get "Why Children Can't Read" by Diane McGuiness.

[M]

Reading these comments, most seem to be about normal children, but what do you do with a high functioning autistic child with ADHD who has no interest in learning to read? My son is 6 years old. We've sat with him and read to him since he was a baby, he's been attending a pre-prep (although we are transferring him to a state school next year because he'll probably get more help). He can't see the benefit. His brother is naturally motivated to read and write. He has been fascinated by letters since he was 2 1/2. It's not just about how much attention you give a child. Some seem to have real problems and then they get left behind. I hope though that he will see the benefit and then will be motivated. Also bearing in mind both my husband and I are degree educated, academic, the house is filled with books. Our son just isn't interested to do it. He does like looking at the pictures. He loves the Anthony Browne books. He comes across as slow because his speech is odd, but he is very creative and above average at model making.

[Malcolm McLean]

Sarina, I disagree that "the window of opportunity closes before the age of 6".

I learnt to read Hebrew at 20. By that I mean that I know the letters, and if the word is familiar I can match it. I am held back not by inability to decipher Hebrew text, but by the fact that I am not fluent.

[FunnyFish]

CATHY: STFU

Can you read that? Do you think this is your own personal blog or something? Boring us all to death.

[Cathy]

Funny fish:
Thanks for that.

[David Vinter]

My late wife taught both our children to 'get with numbers' by the 'Smarties' method! Get the answers right and you get the smarties, get the answers wrong---NO SMARTIES!