I know I don’t read enough or even pick up a book in the baby room sometimes
The controversy of early reading and phonics
Download 7.59 Mb.
|
2.4. The controversy of early reading and phonicsControversy surrounding how early reading should be taught has been an on-going emotive debate for many years (Brooks 2003; Chall 1967; Ehri, 2003; Hall 1987; Gough and Turner, 1986; Liberman and Liberman, 1992; Johnson and Watson, 2005; Rose 2006; Torgeson et al., 2006). Indeed, Snowling and Hulme (2007) suggest that “there has been a long history of conflict about the best way to teach reading” (p. 502). Early reading discourse is usually associated with and surrounded by an advocated phonics approach. Subsequently, this much debated practice of teaching phonics has led to a particular perspective (Rose 2006), that an investment in phonics training (Systematic Synthetic Phonics as the preferred approach) will impact substantially upon young children’s abilities to develop as ‘readers’. Sadly, this standpoint does not recognise the wide range of knowledge and understanding that young children already contribute to reading activities or considers the broader definition of reading. The teaching of SSP has consequently become a priority for all teachers (‘Training our Next Generation of Outstanding Teachers’, November 2013; DfE Phonics Screening Check, 2012; Ofsted, 2014, 2016) across the ‘Early Years Foundation Stage Curriculum’ (DfE, 2014) and ‘National Curriculum’ (DfE, 2014). Research publications, policy documentation and recent media articles involving early reading, teaching phonics and reading attainment has surrounded and has significantly impacted upon ITT in England. In 2011, the DfE published the Implementation Plan ‘Training our Next Generation of Outstanding Teachers’ (DfE 2011), which detailed some new proposals to strengthen ITT in the UK, highlighting SSP as the ‘only’ approach to teaching reading. Crucially, the ‘Rose Review’ (DfES, 2006) suggested that, “for most children, high quality, systematic phonic work should start by the age of five” (p. 29), yet this does not appear to be the case in many nursery and reception classrooms. The pertinent issue of early reading and teaching phonics in a prescribed way has been heightened for teacher training providers, educationalists, researchers, teachers and parents. As such, Lancaster (2007) maintains that “for practitioners, this is yet another instance of pedagogical intervention that has, more than any other over the years, had its unwarranted share of official political interference” (p. 123). Yet, most early reading research is usually centred on children in schools, aged four or five years and above. Much of the literature on teaching reading with school aged children, places phonics at the heart of instruction, but there is actually very little literature on what teaching reading with under-threes actually looks like. This raises a query about the extent to which the phonics debate infiltrates practice with under-threes, or not. This study provided an opportunity to review the extent to which this is essentially the case in practice, if at all. Indeed, as Lancaster (2007) suggests, many very young children already have a solid foundation in early reading experiences, which ought not to be overlooked, given the intense emphasis from policy and research on phonics as a method to teach reading: The current emphasis on the teaching of phonics as the starting point and central focus of literacy learning and teaching from the earliest stages would seem to be significantly at odds with findings such as these. Such an emphasis offers a reductive model of literacy that would seem to turn its back on a great deal of intellectual work that many children have put in well before they even reach nursery age. (Lancaster 2007, p. 149) Erhi et al., (2001) advocate that phonics is just one element of promoting reading development as part of a rich literacy curriculum, which appears to be emerging as a key area of tension from a review of the literature. The emerging issue here for practice seems to be when to begin formal instruction and if at all, regardless of which phonics approach is advocated. Ellis and Moss (2014) state that “there is far less agreement over many claims that it is the single, or even the most important route to becoming a proficient reader” (p. 241). Certainly, Fisher (2010) highlights that “education can feel a very confusing and conflicting place to be for practitioners and teachers” (p. 27). The particular perspective of many researchers (Johnson and Watson, 2005; Goswami, 2015; Torgeson et al., 2006) appears to advocate that phonics teaching is important. Yet I would argue that this is insufficient solely in creating fluent, motivated, critical life-long readers and is pedagogy that is certainly not necessary or good practice for under-threes. Historically, phonics as a particular teaching approach has featured in many reports, government reviews and curriculum frameworks (‘The Bullock Report’, 1975; ‘The Cox Report’, 1989; ‘National Curriculum’, 1989; ‘National Strategies’, 1997-2011; ‘The Literacy Strategy’, ‘Progression in Phonics’, 1999; ‘The Early Years Foundation Stage Curriculum Framework’, 2007). The 1975 Bullock Report ‘A Language for Life’ determined that “there is no one method, medium, approach, device or philosophy that holds the key to learning to read” (DES, 1975, p. 521), which for many educationalists holds true today. Some researchers (Solity, 2006; Wyse and Styles, 2007) suggest that the Rose Review (2006) raised no new concerns or ideals that had not already been identified within the 1975 ‘Bullock Report’, yet did in fact, heighten the controversy. Indeed both these influential reviews were requested by the government of the day and as such could be viewed as a definite approach to legitimise their ‘framing’ of phonics as the issue within the wider literacy debate, alongside the subsequent intervention and support documents for teachers (‘National Literacy Strategy’, 1999). ‘The National Strategies 1997 – 2011, A brief summary of the impact and effectiveness of the National Strategies’ (2011) document highlights “prior to 1998, there was no systematic attempt at a national level to drive improvements in standards through a focused programme of managing changes in the way that core subjects are taught in classrooms” (p. 2) [as a key rationale for their] “professional development programme providing training and targeted support to teachers” (p. 2). The focus of this “targeted support” (p. 2) featured an increased emphasis on phonics within the EYFS (DCSF, 2007; DfES, 2008; DfE, 2012) and specified ‘Systematic Synthetic Phonics’ within the ‘Communication, Language and Literacy’ (CLLD) programme materials. As such, this emphasis was then aligned with Ofsted policies (‘Reading for purpose and pleasure, an evaluation of the teaching of reading in primary schools’, Ofsted, 2004; ‘Reading by six how the best schools do it’, Ofsted, 2010; ‘Getting them reading early’, Ofsted, 2014), which inevitably directly influences practice and provision in schools and consequently, early years settings. Currently, the ECEC workforce is subject to a wide range of policy documents that specify phonics as the principal approach to teaching reading, which may be leading to an increased emphasis on the ‘standards agenda’ described by Roberts-Holmes and Bradbury (2016b), which is now apparent in early years settings. Figure 2.1: ECEC policy documents relating to ‘phonics’Figure 2.1 highlights the policy directives and resources (including both QTS and EYTS revised Teachers’ Standards) that influence and impact on early years provision, in turn leading to ‘schoolification’ (Moss, 2014; Roberts-Holmes, 2015; Vannebo and Gotvassli, 2017) and an intense, unnecessary focus on phonics. 
The literature review highlights that early reading and subsequently the teaching of phonics is somewhat thorny in nature, which causes particular concern for policy makers and educationalists alike. The varying standpoints present competing paradigms, conflicting viewpoints of early reading, which is most unhelpful for practice and provision, particularly for under-threes. Having examined the literature on phonics, it must be stressed that other researchers and educationalist often have different perceptions of reading that include, but are not limited to a use of phonics. This literature is discussed in the next section of this chapter. Directory: 17919 17919 -> Study Guide ~ Physical Features of the United States Atlantic Coastal Plains Download 7.59 Mb. Share with your friends:
|