Andrew Davis says imposition of phonics almost abuse (TES)

Whether or not you are using the Phonics International Programme, feel free to visit this informal 'Chat' forum!
Here you will find all sorts of interesting articles, links to research and developments - and various interesting topics! Do join in!
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

Andrew Davis's pamphlet and interview is now featured in NurseryWorld where I have been able to respond to some of his worries via the 'comments' section:

Interview - Andrew Davis, Research fellow at Durham University's School of Education
10 February 2014 by Catherine Gaunt

http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-w ... -education
Can you explain why you say that the evidence base for synthetic phonics, or for any other prescriptive method to teach children to read, is 'fundamentally flawed'?

Researchers investigating synthetic phonics approaches often try to use 'scientific' methods appropriate for testing drugs or fertilisers. Imagine comparable levels of precision in a description of how reading should be taught.

Imposing such a strategy would turn teachers into mere technicians, supposedly implementing a 'teacher proof' or 'pupil proof' method. For if, contrary to our supposition, it could be modified in the face of pupil responses, it would no longer conform to a specification. By definition, 'pupil proof' methods don't cater for differing pupil needs and stages of development, and hence are not teaching.
I start by saying...
It is good to have an opportunity to address at least some of Andrew Davis's clearly heartfelt concerns via NurseryWorld.

I would like to reassure Andrew and others that it has been perfectly possible via research studies and classroom findings of various descriptions, over considerable time, and across various countries, to identify findings-in-common which can and should be relayed to teachers accordingly as part of their professional development.

For example, that whilst children can indeed learn to read through various routes and practices, there are significantly more fail-safe and inclusive routes - teaching the English alphabetic code and the skills of blending for reading, and segmenting for spelling explicitly and systematically being a case in point. It is important that the teaching profession is aware of the commonalities in generic terms of what works best.
...and I include much more to address some of Andrew's issues.

Furthermore, I've extended an invitation to meet with him and/or for him to attend a training event to allay some of his concerns.
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

Here we go again, yet more publicity for Andrew Davis's alarmist and ill-informed views:
Reading lessons: why synthetic phonics doesn't work

As World Book Day approaches, academic Andrew Davis argues that the synthetic phonics check isn't an appropriate way to teach or assess reading among primary students
http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-netw ... mentpage=1
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

John Walker, via his Literacy Blog, addresses some of Andrew Davis's issues with the English language and spelling system and expresses his disgust at the Guardian giving Davis yet more publicity:


http://literacyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... onics.html
Andrew Davis's philosophical phonics fantasy

Yesterday, the Guardian, to its shame, in my opinion, chose once again to give space to Andrew Davis for yet another opportunity to launch a diatribe against the teaching of synthetic phonics.

Why do I say ‘to its shame’? Because, at bottom, Davis, an academic philosopher, doesn’t know what he’s talking about and anyone with the barest knowledge of phonics teaching ought to know that Davis's charges against phonics teaching are either disingenuous or so riddled with errors that the piece should never have been published. The article ‘argues’ that synthetic phonics isn’t the way to teach children to read.

To begin with, as I've indicated, Andrew Davis is a philosopher. Nowhere does he claim to be an expert on linguistics or on phonetics and phonology. So, it rather beggars belief when he begins his diatribe against phonics by claiming that a ‘phoneme’ is not a sound.
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

Very straightforward reasoning by Harry Webb via his blog, 'Web of Substance' - good to see his contribution as an observer of the intense debate that continues ad infinitum when it comes to phonics!

Phonics Skepticism


http://websofsubstance.wordpress.com/20 ... kepticism/
It seems like an odd argument to make. Rather than understand how words are structured, children should be expected to memorise by sight many thousands of words. And this argument is frequently made by those who shun the memorisation of time-tables, for instance. What on earth is going on? To further muddy the waters, those who are against synthetic phonics often talk as if they are not against phonics per se. For instance, analytic phonics is often mooted as an alternative. However, this is not the same thing at all. Whereas synthetic phonics is the construction of a word from its sounds – an intuitive, common sense approach – analytic phonics is only brought to bear if a child cannot read a whole word. The child is then meant to ask what sound, for instance, the word starts with. This is a less systematic approach.

In addition, analytic phonics is often presented as one of multiple cues such as pictures or context that a child is supposed to use to decode a word. So, despite using the word ‘phonics’, this is pretty clearly the opposite approach to that of synthetic phonics.
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

And now we have an 'open letter' signed by 'leading educationalists, headed up by David Reedy of the United Kingdom Literacy Association calling for the abolition of the Year One phonics screening check:

http://www.phonicsinternational.com/for ... .php?t=678

One of the main references (of two) is Andrew Davis's pamphlet!

Sigh.
Open letter to Michael Gove: 'Why the Year 1 phonics check must go'

Started by: TES_opinion 27-6-2014

A coalition of leading educationalists, organised by the UK Literacy Association, writes:

Dear Secretary of State,

Last week, all six-year-olds in England’s primary schools were tested through the government’s phonics check, together with the seven-year-olds who ‘failed’ it first time round last year. We, the undersigned, have serious concerns about the usefulness of this test, as well as the emerging negative effects on how children are taught to read in Key Stage 1 and their confidence as readers.

Officially, it is described as assessing text decoding skills. Actually, it is dangerously confused.
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

'Andrew Old' revisits the debate over the Davis phonics pamphlet following the publication of the 'open letter' to Michael Gove calling for the abolition of the Year One phonics screening check:


http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.c ... um=twitter


Note the comment left by John Bald:
I think Andrew Davis’ book is the worst-informed attack on phonics to date, and am glad you’ve drawn attention to it. I posted on it here http://johnbald.typepad.com/language/20 ... ics-1.html Best wishes, John Bald
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

Part 2 from 'Andrew Old's' blog:

http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.c ... ment-16419
Revisiting the Debate Over the Davis Phonics Pamphlet: Part 2

July 3, 2014

In this post from yesterday I went over the problems with Andrew Davis’ pamphlet on phonics. It had media publicity at the time of its publication for a reference to phonics teaching being “almost a form of abuse” and argued that we should ignore the research on systematic synthetic phonics because we could not identify whether those methods have actually been used.

An obviously incoherent argument mixed with a lack of any evidence, and a tasteless comparison with child abuse, would, of course, be an embarrassment to anyone engaging in a serious debate. But denialists do need to be able to refer to texts by educationalists in order to give the impression of intellectual legitimacy to their position. While I don’t want to go over Twitter discussions about the pamphlet (suffice to say many of its most ardent admirers seem unfamiliar with its content) it’s worth commenting on a couple of blogposts which attempted to defend it. The first is here. In it, the obvious criticisms that its claims are unsupported with evidence, and in defiance of the evidence, are defended by an appeal to the nature of philosophy:
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

Part 3 from 'Andrew Old' - a 'must read':


http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.c ... et-part-3/

I particularly like this summing-up statement, but anyone who has followed this issue really needs to read all of 'Andrew Old's commentary:

Teachers will always be under pressure to teach a particular way, even if it is from fashion, training and school level pressure rather than national policy. When I argue for an evidence-based profession, I am arguing that teachers should know the evidence and that the trump card when resisting pressure to teach in a particular way is being able to say “but the evidence shows this is not a good idea” without it getting you singled out as a troublemaker. I believe our professional judgement will hold more sway if it is professional judgement backed up by evidence and rational argument. If anything has brought about the statutory phonics check it is teachers ignoring the evidence on phonics or, worse, pretending to teach “phonics” while actually teaching children to guess rather than decode. I don’t want evidence-based practice to create a new orthodoxy, I want it to establish the rules by which orthodoxies can be resisted and overthrown. Evidence will never tell us exactly how to teach, but it will expose when we are mistaken or, worse, when we are dishonest. While we should have plenty of freedom to make our own decisions, we should not be arguing for the principle of making decisions based on ignorance or irrationality. I don’t want the freedom to teach by telepathy or to encourage children to rub their brain buttons. I want the freedom to make informed and reasonable judgements and that requires an informed and reasonable profession.
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

See page 7 where Andrew Old (AO) and I are mentioned with regard to our responses to Andrew Davis's pamphlet and his extraordinary claims:


http://www.philosophy-of-education.org/ ... fbd.pdf%20

Andrew Old mentions Andrew Davis's piece here:


https://teachingbattleground.wordpress. ... achers-up/
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

Blogger Greg Ashman takes up on Andrew Old's point about the educational collective here:

https://gregashman.wordpress.com/2016/0 ... ollective/

I draw attention to what is, in effect, an educational collective, in my reader's comment about the 'International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction' - a deliberate attempt to bring people together of all roles and responsibilities in education with regard to the issue of literacy.
Debbie Hepplewhite
Post Reply