Memorandum submitted by Christopher Jolly,
Managing Director, Jolly Learning Ltd
SYNTHETIC PHONICS
I am the publisher of a programme called Jolly
Phonics which is now used in 54% of UK Primary Schools (Source:
IPSOS-RSL) to teach reading.
The programme is a synthetic phonics programme,
meaning that it introduces the letter sounds of English early
on, typically in the first term at school. Children use these
letter sounds as their main way to read new words by sounding
out and blending.
The programme is for whole class use, not remedial.
It is also used as widely overseas as in the UK.
Results from the use of the programme indicate
that children can have an average reading age, at the end of their
first year, which is 12 months ahead of their actual age. They
have achieved two years gain in the one year, with boys doing
as well as girls. In addition the number of children needing remedial
help falls from over a fifth of children to less than one in 20.
Despite its widespread adoption, the effectiveness
with which schools use Jolly Phonics varies widely. On the one
hand many teachers achieve excellent results. They have a high
level of commitment and understanding, and they may have had significant
mentoring. However such teachers are in a minority. Most teachers
use the programme in a less committed way, without the early emphasis
on sounding out and blending, and so do not achieve the same results.
This lack of commitment and understanding is
rarely because the teacher rejects this method of teaching. Instead
it is because, in teacher training and subsequent mentoring, they
have not been shown and encouraged to use this kind of teaching.
AGE OF
FIRST LEARNING
TO READ
There has been advice from a number of authorities
encouraging a later start to the teaching of reading, typically
that it should start in Year 1, so for children age five, instead
of Reception, when children are four. The main basis for this
recommendation is that children in many other European countries,
such as Finland and Sweden start later and that they soon pick
it up to no disadvantage.
My concern is that this advice is simply a device
for avoiding structured teaching to young children, and in particular
phonics. As an example, in the training advice for the Curriculum
Guidance for the Foundation Stage, published by the DfEE for use
in Reception, is the dismissal of "reciting the alphabet
by heart" as "rote learning" and as a "lower
level of learning". Such negative comments about phonics,
in a document advocating a later start to formal teaching, suggests
that the two are linked.
The advice on delaying the formal teaching of
reading is based on flawed evidence for two reasons.
Firstly, the advice is over-selective because
it draws on evidence from only a few smaller countries in Europe,
none of them with English as a first language. In the US and Canada
the teaching of reading typically starts in Kindergarten with
five year old children but with no observable gain in literary
standards. In Scotland, by contrast, the teaching of reading starts
in the first year at school, P1, when children are four. Scotland
has long claimed to have higher early literacy standards than
England. In private nursery schools in England children start
learning to read before Reception and achievements in such schools
are much higher.
Secondly, the advice is incomplete because it
does not look at other factors. Most languages do not have the
complexity of English, for instance, and so may be easier to learn.
Of the other languages in Europe, only French has a spelling as
irregular as English, and in France the teaching of reading also
starts at age four.
POLICY GUIDANCE
BY THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
The Select Committee should consider whether
strong advice by government is the best route to raising literacy
standards. The record of government has not been encouraging.
Policy making in the teaching of reading is,
inevitably, a compromise between rival points of view. The National
Literacy Strategy was seen by its developers as taking the teaching
of reading as far as it could towards phonics while still retaining
consensus among the different advocates.
On the other hand parents see the issues in
much simpler terms. They want their child to succeed in learning
to read early on. They rightly see it as the key to the child's
future education.
At issue is who the teacher is acting for. Is
it for the wider society (represented by government) or is it
for the parents? Inevitably it is for both, but is the balance
right? At the moment, I would suggest, the role of government,
and of central advice, is too strong. The Select Committee should
consider ways in which schools could be more responsive to parents
as such responsiveness is likely to be one of the most effective
measures in raising standards.
November 2004
| 
