Britain’s schools are in trouble. Anyone still inclined to doubt that should
read last week’s report from the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted).
Christine Gilbert, the chief inspector of schools, courageously pointed out
that while some secondary schools are doing well, one in three (affecting
1.6m children) are no better than “satisfactory” - a word which tends in the
direction of its opposite. One in 10 are “inadequate”. Two hundred thousand
16 to 18-year-olds are “neets” - not in education, employment or training -
and one in five children leave primary school unable to read properly or at
all.
The Labour government famously made education a top priority 10 years ago and
has poured billions of pounds into schools. So clearly something is very
wrong. There is one woman who passionately believes she knows what it is,
and what to do about it, to save this country’s schools and schoolchildren.
Ruth Miskin, a former primary head teacher, believes that the problem and the
solution are very simple. The problem with education is that too many
children can’t read at all, or can’t read properly; clearly, if they can’t
read they can’t be educated. But Miskin is convinced, from her own successes
in inner city schools, that learning to read can be and should be simple and
quick, both for the child and for the teacher. And she has spent the past 13
years trying to prove it, with her own literacy programme (Read Write Inc)
in state schools.
It has been an exhausting time. I have known her well for most of it, and
watched her move on from being a head teacher to developing her own
synthetic phonics programme, working obsessively, discussing it ceaselessly,
writing and self-publishing her own teaching material and story books,
borrowing money to do it, travelling round the country to introduce it to
schools, from motorway to school hall to solitary Travel Inn, from north to
south and back to London.
When I meet her, between training sessions in Bristol, I ask why she does not
stop this punishing schedule. Lots of schools now use her programme, with
excellent Ofsted reports as a result. Now she has sold the programme to
Oxford University Press she could surely slow down. “I can’t,” she says,
laughing. “It’s too much part of me, and besides I love it.”
Miskin looks like rather an unlikely campaigner in a worthy educational cause.
She is very slender, almost fragile, very pretty in a girlish way, both
elegant and inclined to giggle. But she is driven, and furious at the way
children are being failed, and her slight northern accent gets stronger when
she talks of it.
“You can’t call a primary school satisfactory, as the Ofsted report does, if
it sends kids to secondary schools who can’t read,” she says. “That’s not
‘satisfactory’; it’s completely unacceptable. Every child can be taught to
read. And that’s true whether they watch too much telly, play too many
computer games, whether they have dyslexia, suffer from attention
hyperactivity disorder. It’s true even if they have parents who don’t read
to them, or are new to English.”
“Every child?” I ask. “Well, yes,” she concedes, “there may be perhaps one or
even two in a school, with such pronounced learning disabilities that they
may never be able to crack the code. But plenty of people with LDs can learn
to read, given time.” That’s true - my sister is an excellent reader,
despite her marked learning disability. Surely, though, we’ve had synthetic
phonics in schools for nearly 10 years now? Didn’t Tony Blair bring the
discipline of synthetic phonics into the national literacy strategy in 1998,
for which Miskin herself was an adviser. So why didn’t that work?
She smiles, but with long-standing frustration; she thinks the strategy was a
doomed compromise between warring educational ideologies. “Yes, they did put
in a little synthetic phonics. But you can’t have a little phonics - it’s
all or nothing. What we got instead was a mishmash of all sorts of methods -
most of which weren’t working for the most vulnerable kids - the worst of
all worlds.”
These other methods might seem rather strange to an outsider. According to
current government recommendations, there are several different ways of
reading a word, in the sense of figuring out what it says. The child could
look at a picture on the same page, or at the first letter, or at the
context as a whole, or at a combination of all three.
“That’s just guesswork,” says Miskin. “That’s not reading. Reading is cracking
the code, that this squiggle stands for this sound, and then knowing the
sounds of the letters and blending them together, not guessing. Guessing
just holds kids back, it stops them learning to read. And it undermines
their confidence.”
She is scathing about what happens in the government’s national literacy hour
each day. Maybe it’s because there’s a confusion between story time and
literacy time. Of course it’s important to read ambitious stories to
children, beyond their reading age, but not, in the literacy time, until
they can actually read.
In practice, in the literacy hour teachers discuss with young children the
plot, characterisation, authorial intentions and even “genre” in a story
they cannot actually read - cannot decipher - in the hour especially devoted
to teaching them the skill of reading. “You’ll only find just a touch of
phonics in all that melee,” says Miskin. “And that’s where the problem is -
there’s always just a bit of phonics, so everyone thinks they are already
doing it.” What makes it worse, she argues is that many schools give up
trying to teach the weakest children.
“What’s really needed is a tried and tested synthetic phonics system - and
there are several on the market for heads to choose from - which teachers
must teach enthusiastically, systematically, thoroughly and quickly every
day. You can’t muddle it up with any other methods, even other synthetic
phonics programmes. And you need to teach every single child for as long as
it takes.”
Most children will learn to read somehow, no matter how they are taught. “But
there is a large minority,” says Miskin, “about 25%, who won’t and indeed
that’s roughly what we’ve got - 20-25% of kids destined for a blighted life,
for humiliation, unemployment or jail, just because they can’t decode words.
But they could all be reading. I can prove it.”
She does quite clearly prove it, in a very touching documentary mini-series
called Last Chance Kids, which starts on Tuesday. It is part of Channel 4’s
four-day campaign against illiteracy, called The Fight to Help Kids Read,
which also includes a Dispatches investigation into illiteracy and its
social causes and a Richard and Judy book launch.
The Last Chance Kids films are about a deprived school in Dagenham, east
London, called Monteagle, where a quarter of the six to 11-year-olds could
not read at all in 2006 and 50% of them were far behind their chronological
reading age. As a result, many of them were destined to go on to secondary
school unable to learn anything, the flotsam and jetsam of society.
Lynna Thompson, their head teacher, decided to use Miskin’s very rigorous
literacy programme throughout her school, to get every child to become a
reader by the end of the school year. And they all did. Some of them cracked
it in just a few weeks. Monteagle is a success story; this is one of the few
documentaries that have made me cry.
The dawning of happiness and pride on the face of an angry, humiliated,
excluded nine-year-old boy, when he first proves to camera he can really,
truly, read, all by himself - after only a few weeks of synthetic phonics -
is very moving to watch. Some of the parents were weeping. Miskin herself
was obviously deeply moved. “I always am,” she tells me. “It’s always amazing.
It feels like a miracle. But it’s simple really.”
What lies behind it isn’t entirely simple. Having decided on Miskin’s
programme, the head had to persuade her teachers to agree to teach it
according to Miskin’s methods, precisely, exclusively and very uniformly.
Some teachers dislike her insistence that children should be grouped for
reading with other children at the same stage, regardless of their ages. So
you might get a 10-year-old bad boy in a class of five or six-year-olds.
“At first, some teachers think it’s humiliating,” says Miskin. “But which is
more humiliating? Being with little kids for a couple of weeks, or spending
your whole life on the scrapheap, because you’re illiterate?
“The biggest single thing that Ofsted could do for our failing schools would
be to tell the inspectors to find out, before anything else, whether the
lowest-achieving 25% of every class can read - I mean to find out whether
each child has a reading age close to his chronological age, regardless of
anything else. Only then can a school begin to be considered satisfactory.
That’s all they have to do, you know.”
Read more on this topic at
our alphamummy blog
I have a son, age 8 and a daughter, age 7, who have both been taught to read using the synthetic phonics method and who now both voluntarily pick up books to read. I fully support this method of teaching children to read and would ask those who don't one simple question. When a child comes across a new word, for example, 'parliament', how are they supposed to be able to read it, if they don't sound it out and blend it together? I would love Ruth Miskin to ask those who don't support her methods this question.
MRS WENDY CHAPMAN, york, england
I've never understood why England's schools have difficulty learning from good practice elsewhere in the UK. I've been involved in inspecting primary schools in England, Wales and Northern ireland since 1984. In all that time, schools in England have been subjected to complaint about primary-aged pupils not being able to read. The Sunday Times' article (October 21) on synthetic phonics is such a case. Yet Belfast's primary schools have traditionally taught using this approach. In the 1980s, it was almost unheard of to have any 10-year-old with a reading age well below the chronological age - even in the most deprived areas of the city. The reason for Belfast's success was a combination of teaching which relied on synthetic phonics, forensic diagnosis of any reading difficulties, and daily sessions of 20 minutes with each individual slow reader for as long as needed - all backed up with high quality intensive training. It was not rocket science - it was high quality professionalism
Mike, Mitcheldean, UK
I learnt to read aged 4 or 5 using the phonics method. By the age of 9 I had a reading age of 12.9 - I still have the print-out my parents were given to prove it.
My son, just turned 11, learnt the alphabet names rather than sounds before he was 2 years old. By the age of 2 he could read several words, and also correctly identify 3 digit numbers eg for 349 he would say three hundred and forty nine.By the age of 3 he was a fluent & avid reader. We showed him flash cards, but take no credit for his reading ability - he basically taught himself. We still do not exactly know HOW he did it, except that from about the age of 18 months he loved watching 'Countdown!' He especially liked watching the clock going round, but obviously imbibed the word and number games too! Perhaps 'Countdown' should be made compulsory viewing in our schools!
Catherine Webster , Dewsbury, West Yorkshire
Phonics was always the traditional way of learning to read. Used alone it can be boring, but everyone has to know phonics to be able to read fluently, unless you are able to memorize the shape of every word you will ever read.
In the late 1980's when the National Curriculum was being formed, it was said that poor reading standards were due to a lack of phonic teaching. Phonics had to be included in all reading schemes. But it seems this was never implemented.
The excellent Ladybird books (where have they all gone?) included one containing the commonest 100 words or so that children first came across in reading. They had to learn them by 'Look & Say', and there were flash cards for the words. Excellent - they could start simple books - but without phonics they will never be able to tackle new words. Very bright children can pick up phonics for themselves, but most have to be taught them. It is essential.
Dave, Wrexham,
Once the code is broken a new world opens and learning becomes vastly easier. Watch a child generating a text message, playing a computer game, operating a PC and the controls of the infamous video or DVD. The key processes combine instruction and practice.
Edna Ogden mentions SEE, HEAR and DO. See and Hear achieves 50% retention but the National Training Laboratory who completed the analysis revealed the Do practice function achieves 75% retention of learning. As children spend just 15% of their wakening time at school there is a massive opportunity for parents to help in the practice opportunity at home. Modern teaching resources in the form of educational games can engage parents in fun activity at home.
Some 7.4 m households have school aged children, if a percentage become active wonders can happen. Parents outnumber teachers by 16:1 (assuming 1 active parent per household) maybe this is the resource that Ruth Miskin needs Let teachers instruct and parents practice.
Alistair Owens, Doncaster, UK
We were taught by the synthetic phonics method in the thirties and most children left school able to read and write. To claim this system is new is incorrect. Having watched the documentary last evening I was dismayed to see children over-faced with a huge white board containing all the language sounds at once. How daunting; enough to put off any learner. Basic principles of learning were ignored; had they not been, more would have been achieved. SEE, HEAR and then DO; that is how we all learn. Children sitting before the board with no pencil and paper were not able to DO. Too much was put before them. Never put before a learner any more than you want them to learn at that moment or in that session. No sounds were attributed to any words. Children making finger signs as they spoke. Never teach something that has to be unlearned. Will they always do this whilst speaking? Teachers being dictated to by Ruth Miskin. Why do they give everyone a "whoosh" if they're correct? Ugh
Edna Ogden, Betws-y-Coed, Wales
I have teaching experience in state and independent schools and know that the high expectations and consistent teaching of reading in the latter gets results. Traditional teaching i.e. phonics taught rigorously to all, together with daily one-to-one time using methods to suit the individual child does work. Cries of 'elitism', 'class size' and 'paper-work' will follow but why are the children in school? We let down the disadvantaged by hiding behind the dogma put out by the Government adhered to by the Colleges and Inspectors. Group reading, hit-and-miss changing of books and dependence on the parents does not work. I whole-heartedly support Ruth Miskin in her efforts and as a school governor and mentor look forward to a change of direction where it is urgently needed. I feel sure there are many retired experienced teachers who itch to get back into schools to 'hear' reading. Why not use them while giving them the chance to supplement their pension?
Barbara Pimblett, Lymington, UK
synthetic phonics is a commercial enterprise....it may be an adequate method of learning to read, but there are many adequate methods of learning to read, and there is no need for the enormous expense of imposing this particular international method upon our schools.
where synthetic phonics has been successful is in its impressve lobbying and public relations. some of those involved have become quite wealthy.
leo burton, trédarzec (22220), france
While I applaud anything that helps children learn to read, synthetic phonics must not become the only method used. What use is it in trying to improve the reading ability of some children, only to hamper others, who do not or cannot learn that way.
Each child is an individual, so teach them to read as an individual- using whichever method works for them.
The aim is to have literate children.
C.Bevitt, Nottingham, UK
How I agree with Ruth Miskin! However, it is more or less impossible to implement her aproach in a classroom totally dominated by planning -long term, mid term and short term plus the daily plans and the lesson plans. As teachers we should be teaching from where the child is and especially so with basic reading, spelling and numeracy. As a Headteacher of a school at which, as Ruth says, all children learned to read and spell with most achieving level 5 at the end of Year 6 I felt I had no choice but to retire rather than face an inspection during which I would be judged, not on the achievements of the children, but on the amount of planning and paper-work in place. In reply to Mr. Mckeary I would suggest that the belt or cane are unnecessary for children who are achieving their full potential and not frustrated by lack of success - just teach them at their level, systematically, methodically and thoroughly.
Helen Davies, Hereford, UK
I too am angry and deeply concerned about the parlous state of the teaching of reading in our Primary schools. However, the focus of my thoughts is at odds with that of Ruth Miskin: the current concentration on synthetic phonics to the exclusion of all other methods, is having a dire effect on the 50% of children to whom learning to read comes naturally. A systematic approach to phonic awareness is important to subsequent spelling and higher order reading but such teaching at the very beginning only confuses. I can cite countless cases of children who have been totally demoralised by so-called Sythentic Phonics taught in their Reception Year. I teach using attractive simple text with carefully managed vocabulary, then introduce phonics . Only when the child has confidence and understands that words are made up of different sounds and letters does he grapple with the complexities of the phonic system. I am an ex-Head with thirty years experience in teaching reading and now consult.
Eve Wilson, Adstock, Bucks
you will never fix the schools until you bring back punishment.
so you will need to bring back the belt or the cane and this will gain the respect of the school children
michael mckeary, paisley, scotland