Thank you to 'Andrew Old' for his efforts for sticking up for the 'phonics folk' (via Twitter and via his blog) and for drawing attention to the strange state of affairs of what he refers to as 'phonics denialism'.
http://davealdridge.brookesblogs.net/20 ... mment-8689
Please do read Dave's full blog posting.On ‘phonics denialists’
Posted on June 29, 2014 by Dave Aldridge
David Aldridge is Principal Lecturer in Philosophy of Education and Programme Lead for Professional Education at Oxford Brookes University.
Friday’s TES published a letter from a group of educationalists to Michael Gove calling for the abolishment of the Year 1 ‘phonics check’. Signatories included the general secretary of the UK Literacy Association, the chairman of the National Association for Primary Education, the general secretary of NASUWT, and the chair of the National Association for the Teaching of English. In response to the letter, one well-known educational commentator (@oldandrewuk) tweeted “See some phonics denialists got a letter in the TES”. I’m not going to spend any time questioning the use of the markedly pejorative term ‘denialists’, and the attribution of a questionable ethical agenda that is usually implied by it. I’ve done my homework here and see that Andrew Old has used this term in relation to phonics for some time, been called out for it, and made his responses.
But the substance of the charge (implied in this tweet but offered explicitly elsewhere) is that a large number of academics and other educationalists in positions of significant esteem in relation to the teaching of literacy persist in objecting to the application of phonics, or refusing to assent to certain propositions about phonics, despite the overwhelming evidence stacked against them. This is a claim that needs to be questioned.
I am concerned that visitors to my forum also read my response which reflects the reality of people's experiences as a consequence of SSP teaching and learning:
I wrote:
I’ve discovered this posting via the long ‘discussion’ (for the want of a better word) with various folk and Andrew Old using Twitter.
Below is my response to Reedy – which I add here because he has headed up the open letter to Michael Gove on behalf of the UK Literacy Association and other ‘leading educationalists’ that is the subject of your blog posting – please note the response is over a year old:
http://www.phonicsinternational.com/reedy_response.pdf
I have added this response here because I consider that many of the arguments against the Year One phonics screening check are not identifying the correct issues – such as the emotive point that children are getting upset by the check. I suggest that this is more about teacher-mishandling than the check itself. Please do read the response to get a fuller picture.
I would like to give some different perspectives and describe some different experiences:
As I am clearly in the field of phonics and reading/spelling instruction, I visit schools and many teachers and parents contact me. There is not a day goes by that someone is not emailing me for advice – or emailing to tell me about spectacular results from a change in their reading instruction to SSP.
Even when I visit schools and they are not, by my standards, doing an ‘amazing’ job of their phonics teaching, nevertheless, they still get much better results than they have ever done before.
In fact, interestingly, noteworthy (although Reedy et al don’t seem to think this is worth mentioning re the check), there are a greater number of children year on year
able to lift the words off the page (the check).
Shall we celebrate for those children who might not have been taught more effectively if their teachers were not made aware of teaching effectiveness if the check did not exist?
If children are able to accurately and effectively lift the words off the page, they are more able to read books which is, quite frankly, an amazing, empowering skill for children.
Whilst professors and leading educationalists go to considerable lengths to undermine the check (whilst still claiming they acknowledge that phonics may be of benefit), it’s as if they’re not really concerned, or aware of, the real improvements in teaching effectiveness which is happening all around them.
Well, actually I’m a little premature in that statement because we still have a very long way to go in terms of excellent reading instruction everywhere. But we do have schools where nearly all the children can lift the words off the page (the check) which is an indication that they are on their way to good decoding.
I would ask all adults to consider what they actually ‘do’ when they encounter a new word not in their spoken vocabulary? There are no picture clues. There may well be ‘context’ which will no doubt help with ascertaining the meaning of the new word – fine – but how does the adult come up with a pronunciation for a new word?
Phonics knowledge and the skills for decoding and encoding are life-long skills – they are adult skills.
We are getting better and better at providing our youngsters with lifelong literacy skills.
How wonderful it would be if all the leading educationalists would visit some schools where teachers are proud of their new-found teaching expertise in phonics and the following higher standards that arise from this – reaching all the children – schools where they say they do not identify children with ‘dyslexia’ for example, in that they teach them all to read and to read well. I know of teachers who have been tangibly excited to discover how their Year One pupils will fare in the check. We never hear of these teachers in the press because they are just getting on with it – and because, no doubt, it doesn’t make controversial news to be positive about a government initiative.
How wonderful it would be if the leading educationalists had insight into all the thrilled teachers and parents – and headteachers – who contact me with their results.
Take the British School of Costa Rica where the children took the Year One phonics screening check as a consequence of me encouraging its use around the world once the DfE provide it online. There are numerous schools around the world who know of SSP in England and who are adopting the approach. Well – the indications are that schools like the British School of Costa Rica may be teaching more effectively than many of our schools here.
I received an email to tell me that they hired a teacher who did not work in the school to aim for as much objectivity as possible and 88% of their children reached or exceeded the 2013 benchmark and yet English is their second language – they are really Spanish speakers in the main! In Spanish there are virtually half the sounds of the English language and their written code is not nearly so complex. High-quality SSP teaching is working wonders in various schools in Spain and in South America.
I have a zillion examples of positivity and often a kind of objectivity – same teachers, same type of intake of children, change of approach – massively improved results.
Your leading educationalists need to get around a bit.
Kind regards,
Debbie Hepplewhite
Author of Phonics International – written to support people in all circumstances.
Phonics Consultant for Floppy’s Phonics Sounds and Letters – written to bring Oxford Reading Tree up to date with the research and leading edge practice.
Anyone is welcome to contact me if they would like to learn more about SSP teaching and results with real children.
Reply
Debbie Hepplewhite says:
June 30, 2014 at 1:03 am
I have added this posting onto my Phonics International message forum as it contributes to the national picture. Thank you.