1 Introduction
1. The ability to read is the key to educational
achievement. Without a basic foundation in literacy, children
cannot gain access to a rich and diverse curriculum. Poor literacy
limits opportunities not only at school, but throughout life,
both economically and in terms of a wider enjoyment and appreciation
of the written word. This inquiry was motivated by the Committee's
firm belief that all children should get the best teaching possible
in this crucial area.
2. The Government tells us that primary school children
have never been more proficient readers. It claims this achievement
as the outcome of its National Literacy Strategy (now Primary
National Strategy), introduced in 1997. Others question the true
extent of this success. Moreover, even if Government figures are
taken at face value, at age 11, around 20% of children still do
not achieve the success in reading (and writing) expected of their
age. This figure is unacceptably high. Furthermore, there is a
wide variation in the results achieved by schools with apparently
similar intakes.[1] This
differential achievement suggests that problems do exist, either
in the implementation of the Government's strategies or inherently
in the methodology it promotes.
3. The main issue for this inquiry was to examine
current practice in schools. We engaged with the ongoing debate
concerning the best method of teaching reading. We took evidence
from witnesses who argued that 'phonics' programmes should have
more prominence in the early teaching of reading (these programmes
concentrate on establishing an early understanding of sound-letter
correspondence). We took evidence from others who questioned the
utility of this approach, preferring to focus on the development
of vocabulary and the enrichment of linguistic experience, as
well as from those who support the current Government advice in
the form of the Primary National Strategy. Many of those who contacted
us during this inquiry argued passionately for or against these
different methods. Our aim was to determine objectively which
method worked best, based on the available evidence, or, if the
evidence was insufficient, to recommend steps that should be taken
in order to reach a conclusion.
4. This inquiry has focused specifically on the methods
used in schools to teach children to read. We fully acknowledge
that the acquisition of reading is an extremely complex subject,
which is influenced by factors outside a school's control, such
as socio-economic background, neurological development, the language
of instruction and the experiences and stimuli a child encounters
at a very early age, as well as many others. These factors deserve
a thorough treatment which has not been possible in the limited
time available to us. However, we do consider that teaching methods
have a significant impact on a child's chances of becoming a fluent
reader. Some of the other factors involved in early childhood
development are discussed in our recent report on the reform of
children's services, Every Child Matters and in previous
reports on Pupil Achievement and Early Years.[2]
5. Before setting out our conclusions and recommendations,
it is necessary to clarify the central terms concerned in any
discussion of 'teaching children to read'. 'Reading' is a term
that is often used as if were self-evident. But a number of different
processes can be understood to make up 'reading'. These include:
- decoding: the ability to translate
letters on a page into known sounds that correspond to a word;
- comprehension: once a word has been sounded out,
understanding the meaning of that word;
- narrative: Knowing that a story has innate progression
and coherence: a beginning, middle and end;
- familiarity with books and other printed material:
a culture of wanting to read and enjoying it.
Most would agree that being a reader involves all
these elements. But when discussing the teaching of reading it
is sometimes useful to distinguish between them.
6. In addition, 'literacy rates' are often referred
to without a precise definition of what constitutes 'illiteracy'.
Sometimes, reading ability is measured against a specific benchmark,
such as the Government's Level 2 skills standard (equivalent to
the reading ability expected of an 11 year old), which measures
adult literacy. Elsewhere, illiteracy is simply a synonym for
any reading ability below that expected of a child's age (as measured
by Key Stage tests). In these cases, it is possible for a child
to have a significant mastery of reading and to be able to cope
with quite sustained texts whilst still being described as 'illiterate'.
In this report, we have attempted to be as precise as possible
when dealing with measurements of literacy and to state on each
occasion which measure is being used.
7. We announced our inquiry into methods of teaching
children to read in November 2004. In the course of this inquiry,
we took oral evidence from Dr Morag Stuart, Reader in Psychology,
Institute of Education, University of London; Mrs Debbie Hepplewhite,
Reading Reform Foundation; Mr Stephen Twigg, MP, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State for Schools; Mr Andrew McCully, Director
of School Standards Group, Department for Education and Skills;
Dr Kevan Collins, National Director, Primary National Strategy;
Ms Sue Lloyd, Co-author, Jolly Phonics; Professor Rhona
Johnston, Professor of Psychology, University of Hull; Ms Ruth
Miskin, ReadWrite Inc.; Mr Neil McClelland OBE, Director and Ms
Julia Strong, Deputy Director, National Literacy Trust; and Ms
Jo White and Ms Melian Mansfield, Early Childhood Forum. We received
55 written submissions. We would like to thank our Specialist
Adviser, Professor Kathy Sylva, for her valuable assistance.
1 Reading for Purpose and Pleasure: an evaluation
of the teaching of reading in primary schools, Ofsted, HMI
2393, 14 December 2004. Back
2
Education and Employment Committee, First Report of Session 2000-01,
Early Years, HC 33-I; Education and Skills Committee, Seventh
Report of Session 2002-03, Secondary Education: Pupil Achievement,
HC 513; Ninth Report of Session 2003-04, Every Child Matters,
HC 40. Back
|
