I'm always slightly baffled by the incredibly ferocity of the arguments over synthetic phonics teaching. There is no real argument; synthetic phonics work, the end. Yet that does not stop people on both sides of the argument firing off pretty dreadful comments on forums and blogs. It is enough to make me pause before posting items about phonics and it is usually my blogs about phonics that get the most hits- though fortunately never any trolling because of my views!
I have to admit, when Letters and Sounds first came out I was deeply cynical. I thought, if it was that easy why weren't we all doing it decades ago? Now I just think, why weren't we doing it decades ago? Teaching phonics in a really systematic way works; it enables children to read and I really cannot see why people argue about it, as it is a fact. In my very long teaching career I have only ever met one child who completely failed to read learning phonics, but then he completely failed to learn to read at all. He had a very specific learning difficulty which meant his maths was fine but he was unable to remember letters or sounds and had to have the maths paper at Y6 read to him. That is one child out of hundreds who did not make a success of reading through phonics- not a scientifically conducted test, but pretty compelling none-the-less.
What I have seen is Year 1 teachers amazed at the jump in standards when Reception started teaching systematic phonics. Year 1 teachers could not get over how much better the new Year 1 children were after a year of phonics teaching. This was noticeable, not only in reading but writing too. By the end of Reception children can have a go at spelling any word they want to and whilst they won't yet know all the variables involved in spelling, they can make a pretty good stab at some very complicated words. How amazing to be able to give children the gift of being able to write as well as read!
Some of the more anti-systematic phonics brigade seem to think that by teaching phonics you are not teaching a love of books. I do admit some of the very phonic based books are not great literature, but they serve a purpose, namely to support early reading through using phonics skills previously learnt. No-one is suggesting that children only read these sort of books, but merely that they learn to read with this type of text, as it supports them. They can then read plenty of other, wonderful children's books at the same time. So, for example, alongside learning Phase 3 phonics from Letters and Sounds in Reception, a child could be reading Shark in the Park by Nick Sharrett which amply illustrates the use of the /ar/ phoneme, or Mr Magnolia by Quentin Blake, which goes beautifully with Phase 5 /oo/ graphemes in Year 1.
Amidst all the arguing it seems to me that the essential fact has been lost, namely that phonics teaching is the tool not the end goal. The end goal is learning to read, which requires both phonics skills and comprehension. Once again, good phonics teaching allows for this, with fantastic words littered across schemes such as Letters and Sounds. Within the first weeks of phonics teaching children are learning words like nip, sap, din and nag and in order to read and write they do need to have the understanding of the word meanings that go with this. I know the decoding check seems to be demanding the opposite, with half of it being made up of 'nonsense' words, but these words will not improve reading standards, where as good phonics teaching will.
Then there is the argument that the test is biased against good readers. My son was one of those children, he was reading fluently by the end of Year 1. Having had excellent phonics teaching it made no difference to the outcome of the decoding check, he had just been taught that he should always use phonics as his first strategy, so that was what he did. Interestingly, in the word by word breakdown of the decoding check outcomes, it is always words with split digraph, whether nonsense or not , that have the lowest number of children read them correctly. The simple solution is to make sure teachers revise split digraph just before the decoding check. It would appear children are not phased by the nonsense words at all if they are used to using phonics as their first strategy when reading.
So you see I really do not understand the arguments at all (or why anyone has to be unpleasant about it, whatever their view). I have visited many schools as well as taught hundreds of children. Systematic phonics, when taught well, has meant great success for many children and there can be no argument in that.
