What to say to phonics sceptics

In the UK, we often hear people making anti-phonics claims in the media. Usually, these demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of Synthetic Phonics. Mike Lloyd-Jones, in his book Phonics and the Resistance to Reading, lists these incorrect assertions and challenges them. Based on his book, here is how we can answer their claims:

“The English language is non-phonetic.”

This is not the case: the English language does have a phonic alphabetic code. It is complex. Children are taught first the simple part, and then the complex part. As part of the complex code, children learn alternative spellings for sounds and alternative sounds for spellings. Most children will need to learn roughly 100 grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences to become fluent readers.

Very few words fall outside of the phonic code. Why would we withhold knowledge and skills we know will help children learn to read? Would we withhold useful information from children when teaching any other subject?

To see the phonic code table, click here.

“Children learn in different ways.”

Phonics is not a way you teach a child to read, but the content and skills necessary for them to become a fluent reader. The phonic code (grapheme/phoneme correspondences) is a body of knowledge. Children also need to learn to segment and blend sounds in words.

We know that, in order for children to become numerate, it’s imperative to teach them basic facts and skills, and how to manipulate those facts for certain functions. In just the same way, it’s imperative to teach children the phonic knowledge and skills to become literate.

“Phonics does not help comprehension.”

Reading = decoding + comprehension. In a minority of cases, children may be able to decode without comprehending what they are reading. This can occur with EAL children, or children with a language deficit, who need to be taught vocabulary alongside of decoding. Most children will develop comprehension once they develop reading fluency, practise reading and expand their vocabulary as a result.

Researchers have found that poor decoders rarely have good comprehension, because you can’t comprehend what you can’t read. If you find reading difficult, you won’t want to practise it. If you don’t read, you won’t develop a vocabulary, which will limit your comprehension. Poor decoders will inevitably be reluctant readers.

Good decoding skills are the best start for good comprehension as they develop fluent and confident readers. These readers can read more-challenging texts that then develop wider vocabulary, more fluency and further comprehension. (This is clearly detailed in Gough and Tumner’s A Simple View of Reading, 1986.)

“Children have different learning styles, so ‘mixed methods’ offers them a choice.”

Firstly, it’s important to understand that phonics is not a learning style: it’s about knowledge and skills.

In contrast, ‘mixed methods’ offers children a ‘reading-by-guessing’ strategy (guessing by picture, context, grammar and initial letter) alongside phonics. This can leave children to flounder: they need to decide which method to use for every word. In this way, ‘mixed methods’ promotes inconsistent and often inaccurate reading. Would we leave children to guess number bonds?

“Phonics deters children from reading for pleasure.”

You can’t read for pleasure if you can’t read. Phonics accelerates the acquisition of literacy, which launches children into a rich diet of literature.

Phonics, if taught well, is used for only the first stages of acquiring literacy. As children are taught to read, they should hone their skills in reading exercises called ‘decodable’ books. Children are not denied access to picture books or books that are beyond their reading level. Teachers continue to read to children and surround them with a literature-rich classroom environment.

“Some children learn to read without phonics.”

Yes, some do, as they unscramble the phonic code for themselves – but a phonics programme will help their spelling.

As we don’t know from the start who will need a structured phonics programme and who will not, should we allow children to fail before we teach them in a systematic way? Would we refrain from teaching all children number bonds because some children pick them up at home or teach themselves?

 “If phonics hasn’t worked, why give children more of the same?”

A number of ‘catch-up’ programmes include mixed methods, claiming that phonics on its own did not help the child to learn to read. In most cases, there are other reasons the child did not learn to read. For example:

• The child is confused, as mixed methods are taught alongside phonics.
• The child has not been allowed sufficient skill practice (blending and segmenting) before moving to the next stage.
• The books used for reading practice cannot be read using the phonics strategies the teacher has taught, as their reading scheme is not decodable. This means the child must resort to guessing in order to read the text. What struggling readers need is a highly structured phonics programme with plenty of practice of skills at each stage. Using ‘decodable’ reading books is essential to help children to develop reliable, successful decoding strategies.