I'm quite surprised that no one responded to this posting. It perhaps reflects both the apathy towards, and lack of understanding people have for, learning to read. Sadly, Synthetic Phonics is not the solution to improving literacy among our children. There are many reasons why first Phonics, and now, Synthetic Phonics do not work. For one thing, learning to read is not a science, and the deconstruction of language into component parts does nothing to help contextual understanding.
I was fortunate to have the opportunity of being able to teach my daughter to read fluently without any Phonic instruction along the way. Based on work researched by a close friend, Maureen Sheard, I decided to apply a different approach. I taught my daughter the alphabet using an alphabet jigsaw play mat, calling the letters by their proper names, not by their 'Phonic sounds' and I read her story books - many of them old 'Ladybird' books with plenty of text, a good storyline with memorable elements of fantasy, and a picture on each page. As I read aloud, my daughter looked at the pages I was reading. The first thing I found with this approach, is that the child continually requests the same story for several nights in a row before accepting a new story. This process is repeated - even more so with 'favourite' stories. I then found that I was sometimes corrected in my delivery if I accidentally deviated from the exact text that I had always been careful to follow. "They're not feet, they're hooves!" was one retort that I remember clearly. On one occasion, I was being interrupted so frequently that I exclaimed: "Well, you read it then!" The book was promptly taken from me and my daughter 'read' word-perfectly to the end of the book. Okay, she wasn't reading. She had remembered the story and knew when to turn the pages at the right time. However, she was assimilating the experience of reading with enjoyment and understanding. She was constantly picking up clues in context. She was recognising that some words were given more expressive emphasis than others. Some words had a different appearance to other words. Cinderella had a big letter at the start and two lines next to each other. She soon discovered that she knew the word 'Cinderella' by sight, yet she would not necessarily be able to spell the word. In the same way that a small child in the high street knows MacDonalds, just by recognising the distinctive logo.
The way children learn to read, and in fact, learn to do anything at all, is a mystery by the time we get to adulthood. We think we know how we learnt something, but really, can we be so sure? I certainly remember learning ITA as a child in the 1960s and I remember 'sounding out' some words when I was 7 years old. I also had a father who read me a story most nights. But, even this tells us only so much. When you consider how a young child (say up to 5 years old) learns any activity, there is first mimicry, then experimentation - trial and error, and also repetition. Driving all of this is the desire to make something happen. Learning that shouting out 'drink' elicits a desired outcome is a good reason to remember and learn that the two are connected in gaining a desired response from an adult.
As my daughter has grown older, I have noticed other things about the way she learns. For instance, using a computer. I wondered why she was so quick to pick things up that I know for sure would have taken an adult learner 3 or 4 times longer to grasp. After discussing this at length with Maureen, we concluded that one possible explanation was that children do not need to know 'why' they have to do something. The only time that very young children ask 'why?' is when they cannot find a way to achieve a desired result through their normal means of discovery. Adults, on the other hand, always want to know 'why?' Adults are more analytical in their approach to things in life. We have to dissect things - take them apart and examine each component in the belief that we will better understand how something will function... and yet, at the same time, many of us can still drive a car without having to know how the engine works.
In an age of continual assessment - breaking down every element of the learning process to minutia, it is no wonder that we are 'losing the plot'. Every solution to a problem has to go before a committee of 'experts'; every moralistic and politically correct expression has to be taken into careful account; and if someone can extract a monetary profit in the process - so much the better!
With a typically 'normal' child, learning to read is actually very simple and very cheap. It mainly comes down to time and attention: parents reading with their children in the early years from a few weeks up to 5 years. The problem with a Phonic approach is it labels everyone Dyslexic. Dyslexia is a condition that genuinely afflicts a relatively small percentage of people. However, using techniques on 'normal' children, designed to help Dyslexics, is like treating everyone as if they have a disability. The technique of applying any type of Phonic teaching in a blanket way to all young children is highly damaging and shows no understanding of the way children learn to read. I would have to suggest that the current research behind Synthetic Phonics is severely flawed, and the methodology is full of holes - it cannot even be delivered with consistency throughout different areas and regions of the country. The sad truth is, the pro-Dyslexia and Synthetic Phonic movement now has mainstream acceptance up to Government level and because of this no one is now being allowed to offer an alternative viewpoint. The Jury has been dismissed and no more cases can be forwarded for consideration!
