Phonics teaching- why is there any debate?

It is odd, that with phonics very much a part of the English curriculum and well embedded in most schools, that there is still an anti-phonics  voice, which suddenly seems to have reared it’s head again recently.  

So what did phonics ever do for us and why is it still a topic of heated debate?

My experience is that all but a very, very few learn to read using phonics. In fact I can only think of one child who completely failed to learn to read using phonics. He went off to secondary school still not reading and he had very specific language difficulties. The Reading by Six OFSTED report (2010) clearly states that successful schools have rigorous and systematic phonics programmes, coupled with high expectations and their pupils learn to read regardless of social background or disability.

This bit about disability does seem to be a bit contentious; I hear many teachers bemoan the fact that the weakest children in the class just do not learn phonics and so are getting further and further behind. I have seen a child with Down’s Syndrome begin to read with phonics simply because he was present when the rest of the class were learning phonics. He had additional help but without the expectation that he could take part with the rest of the class, I do not think he would have begun to recognize letters. He was Year 2 and obviously not at the same level as his classmates, but he was beginning to recognise initial sounds, entirely due to being present when the class were being taught. I do not think he would have begun the journey if he had been taken out of every phonics lesson because he was not at the same level.

The seven year Clackmannanshire study by Johnston and Watson (2005) really set the systematic phonics teaching in motion. It resulted in the Rose Review and this lead to the publication of Letters and Sounds. The study found two particularly significant things: firstly that the gains made by children taught using systematic phonics  remained right up until Year 6. Secondly that children not taught at the same pace never caught up.

There seems to me to be no case for arguing against phonics with these two outcomes alone being a very strong case for teaching systematic phonics.  Yet teachers tell me again and again it is not suitable for all children and what about those children who are already reading when they come into school?  I say, how wonderful, already reading, that is great, but they still need phonics as firstly, they will be unable to decode more complex words without it and secondly, it can severely impact on spelling if they have no phonics skills by the time they enter KS2. I know a very bright and able child who learnt to read without phonics who finds spelling quite hard now he is in Year 3 ,as he has poorer skills in selecting the correct grapheme because he never needed to learn phonics when reading. I know another similarly bright child who learnt to read using phonics and he is now, not only a better reader but a better speller than his contemporary. He was reading fluently by the time he took the decoding check but it did not make any difference to the outcome of the check.

I genuinely do not understand why anyone would be against teaching systematic phonics. It works and helps children to read and write- what more do you need?