Phonics is in the news again with the publication of Jim Rose's report which has determined that synthetic phonics should be taught in schools and early years settings. Of course the report is hedged around with fine words about the importance of speaking and listening and the value of the rich experiences which Rose (in a curiously dated phrase) terms 'pre-reading activities'. But a single uniform approach to teaching phonics is prescribed.
All early childhood practitioners want children to learn to read and write.
Effective educators believe passionately that their role is to promote children's well-being and achievement. Being an enthusiastic and critical reader is essential to success. This requires, but goes way beyond, being able to sound out words.
So what's the fuss about? We all want children to read and we all agree that phonic knowledge is an essential component of this, so why not just get on with it?
We must make a fuss, because we are being asked to embrace a policy that flies in the face of current approaches. Personalised learning, the involvement of parents, playful engagement, sustained shared thought and conversation, could fall to pressure to teach in styles that can place unnecessary emotional and physical strain on young children and deny them time to explore and play.
Why is the Government's focus on the type of phonics taught, when the DfES'
own review of relevant research concludes that there is no significant evidence to support this? Why has the focus not been on reading for pleasure - an area of concern highlighted by children's authors? Or on comprehension? Both are essential to lifelong success. Why is the focus on the early years? An earlier and earlier introduction to reading does not ensure a more successful future.
The time has come to stop accommodating all that is thrown at us, and to say 'enuf is enuf!'
