Many teachers are resistant to teaching phonics. They act like it’s a right-wing conspiracy or something. Why is that? Hasn’t it been proven that phonics works?
This is an old controversy. Why Johnny Can’t Read by Rudolf Flesch made the same point as the OP in the mid 1950s. That book was a best-seller then. The Amazon customer reviews are interesing.
I believe teachers often aren’t taught that phonics is the best way to teach reading. So, it comes down to the education “experts.” Unfortunately, these “experts” are not judged on the actual results of their methods.
OK, dumbo here.
What’s a phonic?
Look, I believe in phonics. It’s the way I was taught to read (by my Mom, before I started school), and it worked well. But it’s not the ONLY valid way to teach reading. After all, the Chinese and the Japanese (among others) systems of writing don’t depend on phonics at all. Chinese and Japanese kids learn to read just fine by memorizing large numbers of symbols, and learning to associate each symbol/character with a word or concept (that’s not QUITE the same as the “look-say” method used at many modern American schools, but there’s certainly a parallel).
So, while I believe phonics is a valuable tool, I ALSO know that it’s just one of several valid ways to teach reading, and it’s NOT something mandated by God or the Founding Fathers. And yet, it often seems as if the most ardent champions of phonics are religious conservatives who think Jehovah Himself invented phonics, and that anyone who uses any other method is a commie, atheist subversive.
So, small wonder that modern teachers are leery when they hear people singing the praises of phonics- sadly, as soon as they hear the word “phonics,” they assume they’re in the presence of a right-wing, religious zealot, and they start to tune out.
Phonics does rather seem to have become a pet issue of the political right. Why that is, I have no idea. As astorian points out, it’s not like Phonics is the only way to teach reading. I suspect different methods end up with varying results for different students. Whole language worked just fine for me, but I took to reading very quickly, so who knows?
I would challange the initial statement. Education gets faddish. About ten years ago phonics was passe and it was the heyday of “whole language”; now the pendulum has swung back and phonics is holding court over the “whole language” approach. As in many things, the best approach probably incorporates both elments.
Teaching decoding skills in the absence of anything worth reading, coding skills in the absence of anything worthwhile to say (the extreme phonics view), is not an ideal method. Assuming that all children will automatically learn the rules of phonics if exposed to enough real literature (the extreme whole langauge approach) is not ideal either.
Currently my experience is seeing both approaches combined with phonics taking center court.
The Master has spoken on this one:
Crafter_Man
My sister is a special-ed (emotionaly impaired) elementary school teacher— and she thinks it’s totally absurd that the public schools took phonics out of the curriculum.
A letter (group or letters) sound. So, if I wanted to teach you to read phonetically, for example, the word “bat”, we’d start by breaking it down into either b-a-t, or b-at, then you’d learn what sound the letter b makes, what sound the letter a makes and what sound the letter t makes, then you’d put together the sounds.
I was taught using both methods. We learned phonics AND whole words.
What’s wrong with using both?
Not all children learn in the same way, you know.
Guinistasia
Whole language is not only learning whole words. It’s integration of all the subject areas. It’s not actually only about learning to read. A fully whole language program would not have ‘reading’ and ‘math’ and ‘writing’ as separate subjects. It’s all integrated.
FWIW, when I was a kid, I was taught using phonics; then my dad was transferred to a new city, and I started going to school with kids who were raised on whole language. I always had an easier time picking up new words than those kids – I just instinctively broke the words down into their phonetical components.
I think whole language has a place as a supplement to phonics, but it shouldn’t replace phonics or even take priority over them, IMO.
december
Depending on when they were teacher trained and what sort of professional development they’ve had, some teachers could teach using only phonics, mostly phonics or very litttle phonics.
I finished my undergrad and teaching certification in 1991 and I learned about the whole pendulum swinging both ways, and that wise teachers take the best from the phonics approach and the best from the whole language approach.
When a school uses one method and eliminates any “taint” of any other method, it’s bad news for any child who does not learn well by that method. When I started school, the “look-say” method was in vogue. It didn’t work for me. I didn’t really learn to read until my mother taught me, using the phonetic method then considered old fashioned.
I read “Why Johnny Can’t Read” years ago, and it made a lot of sence to me, based on my on experiences. The author said that it’s dumb to try to teach kids to recognise whole words (as though they were pictograms) without paying any attention to the individual letters within the word. For one thing, kids have trouble dealing with unfamiliar words, as they have not been taught to sound them out. For another, it’s a receipe for producing bad spellers.
“In <i>Using Multiple Methods of Beginning Reading Instruction (1999), </i> the International Reading Association states that there is no single method or single combination of methods that can successfully teach all children to read. Therefore, teachers must be familiar with a wide range of methods for teaching reading and have a strong knowledge of the children in their care so they can create the appropriate balance of methods needed for each child. Further, these professionals must have the flexibility to modify those methods when they determine that particular children are not learning.”
http://www.reading.org/focus/beginning.html
This is from the professional organization for reading teachers. Clearly, people are learning that integrating both approaches (as well as several other ways of teaching reading) is best.
Nothing’s wrong with using both. The trouble is that many phonics-only programs are being adopted gleefully by school districts across the country to the dismay of teachers who want to stick with familiar methods.
Personally, I haven’t seen any independent research (i.e., research not sponsored by the phonics industry) that proves a phonics-based reading approach is more effective than whatever is currently in use. Such a study would also need to prove that the phonics program itself, rather than the extra reading instruction being provided through the program, is what causes improvement in reading skills. I would love to see a cite on any such study that exists.
My kids’ public school uses the Wilson Reading System which combines elements of whole-language and phonics. :::shrugs:: Works rather well, IMO.
When my oldest was just a beginning reader I was noticing how many of our most common words didn’t follow usual phonics rules - an obstacle as soon as the child picks up a book. Ex: “Who said?” {woo sayed? woe sighed?} “One, two…” Etc. Better that they learn these right away, somehow.
The religious right’s support for phonics is based on the fact that teachers generally don’t like phonics- or more correctly- don’t accept “100% pure phonics”, as many use a mixed sysyem- which seems to work the best. (At least it did for me, anyway). See, the poor religious right is stuck in a quandary- they have to be “pro-education” (or else no one with kids will listen to them), but since teachers are usually liberal- (and teachers unions are often quite liberal), they have to be “anti-teacher”. Hard to be “pro- education” but “anti-teacher” at the same time.
Hukt on fonicks rilly wurkt fer mee!!!
(sorry, had to do it!)
Speaking as a more central ‘right-winger’ the reason its disliked by the right are several:[ul][li]As someone mentioned, education methods like these can be considered fads that just fall in and out of favor.[/li][li]Phonics is often lumped in with all the other so-called relaxed, progressive techniques like no desks, no rules, no seperation by learning ability, letting kids grade themselves etc.[/li][li]Phonics is likened to other great liberal causes like esperanto and ebonics.[/ul]I started first grade in 1971 and I remember them teaching something like phonics. I think it was call ATI & TO or something. Not to be mean-spirited or anything but I remember that it was always the, ahem, dumb kids who got taught this. I remember looking at their books and thinking “why is everything spelled wrong?”[/li]
What I mean is, I don’t think phonics should be taught universally. It should only be used as an added step for those kids that have trouble learning to read. And then, only for a short time.
I mean, that is pretty much why its used, right? Because of English’s numerous & illogical spelling rules. But you have to learn these no matter what, and I do think it does more harm than good to delay things too long with phonics.