One of the ironies of election campaigns is that although they appear to be about “issues”, some of the most important subjects in life are scarcely discussed during them. Tony Blair and Michael Howard traded blows in the House of Commons yesterday and then went to the press conference circuit to take the battle on farther. Somewhat more quietly, the House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Skills has released an intriguing report, Teaching Children to Read, which is unlikely to feature large on the hustings. Yet, whatever method of teaching literacy one prefers, this document makes for very important reading. It must be revisited after polling day.

The question addressed here is how best to ensure that young minds capture the basics of reading. This is an area in which ministers can claim success, although perhaps not to the extent that they might aspire to. Before 1997, there was no national strategy for reading to speak of and a mere 67 per cent of 11-year-olds reached the standards expected of their age group. As a result of David Blunkett’s efforts as Education Secretary, a structured literacy hour was introduced in all primary schools and the proportion hitting the standard improved to 82-84 per cent. Since then, however, it appears to have become stuck at that range. A further advance is obviously required.

It is not clear whether the National Literacy Strategy (as it remains widely called despite being renamed the Primary National Strategy) can deliver that additional progress. When it was set up, Mr Blunkett, probably correctly at the time, endorsed a compromise on teaching methods. The “synthetic phonics” technique (which breaks any word into the smallest range of sound units) was brought back into approved teaching along with less demanding forms of phonics (“analytic”). The so-called “look and see” blueprint also stayed in the programme. This has been popular with some teachers but is dismissed by many parents as far too close to “look and guess” reading.

The select committee has, in effect, asked whether this compromise is actually compromising the education of many children. By urging that ministers commission a sweeping review of the National Literacy Strategy, they indicate that they think that it does. They conclusion is persuasive.

The committee is particularly interested in new evidence that suggests that synthetic phonetics should be the orthodoxy in the teaching of reading. Some schools with many children from very deprived backgrounds whose parents do not speak English at home — such as Kobi Nazrul School in Tower Hamlets — have adopted synthetic phonetics and made spectacular progress. A study conducted in Clackmannanshire, in Scotland, determined that not only did this “first and fast” means of teaching reading help children to learn to read but that there were also extra long-term benefits.

A degree of caution is, of course, appropriate. It is unlikely that there is a “silver bullet” method that can assist all children to read immediately. As the committee itself observes, this is “extremely complex” territory and “no system will achieve a complete elimination of underachievement” in literacy. The balance of the argument has, nonetheless, shifted in favour of reforming the reading system. When the synthetic sound and fury of this election campaign is over, the next Education Secretary should look at synthetic phonics most sympathetically.

Times Recommends

• The chilling lie behind two webcam suicides
• Crochet and crafts at the hen party
• Want to be a genius? Practise, says geneticist