Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340-359)
7 FEBRUARY 2005
MR NEIL
MCCLELLAND
OBE, MS JULIA
STRONG, MS
JO WHITE
AND MS
MELIAN MANSFIELD
Q340 Chairman: Are they not different
though? On the one hand you said the first part was that it was
essential if it was being taught through synthetic phonics that
the teacher should know that the child was being taught through
synthetic phonics. On the other hand, what I thought Ruth Miskin
was saying was that any activity, sitting a child on your lap
very, very early on with the earliest kind of book you could possibly
have, was also good. Which is good? Both?
Mr McClelland: I am sorry, I did
agree with that. I thought the question was: is it important that
schools communicate effectively with parents about their reading
approach?
Q341 Mr Greenway: Yes, it was. The answer
Ruth gave to me was that anything you can get the parent to do
is helpful. What we have really done is try to take the argument
a bit further. If you are really going to encourage parental involvement
as opposed to a view on parents, whatever it is they may do with
their child, which would not necessarily have been encouraged
by the school, if the school is going to encourage them, the parents
need to know what kind of learning to read system is in use in
the school, otherwise they have no idea.
Ms Mansfield: How parents can
help their children to enjoy reading is more the point, so that
they can spend time with their children listening, or even reading
to them up to an older age, because that is what is important,
not necessarily entirely knowing exactly what method the school
was using, because that can reduce the enjoyment of reading into
something very mechanical and that is the concern about a lot
of the debate which has gone on, that it is mechanical. Children
may be able to decode and read mechanically, but enjoying, understanding
and wanting to read more is another whole aspect and that is why
we are talking particularly in the Early Childhood Forum, of the
importance of the early experiences which encourage that. Part
of that is about enjoying stories both at home and in any early
years setting. It is important that that interest and motivation
is developed in early years, because if it is not there then,
it will not come later.
Ms Strong: It is very important
that schools do not make the parents feel daunted. Obviously if
you are not a very good reader yourself and you think the school
has rather a complicated reading scheme, you could completely
alienate them. The important thing is that the parents are informed
about what is going on in school, but that they are encouraged
to engage with their children in any way they can. There is even
evidence that it is still very helpful if parents who cannot read
sit with the child and have the child read to them. That has been
shown to be very useful.
Q342 Paul Holmes: I asked a question
earlier about my concern that if you said synthetic phonics was
the answer, the Holy Grail, everything else was wrong, you would
introduce this, would that not cause a lot of problems in that
parents are going to be trying to teach the kids to read at home,
they are going to read books with them? Surely, if in school they
are using a very rigid system, you just learn these sounds, then
you just read books specially written to contain only those sounds,
how can you reconcile all the stuff the child and the parents
are doing outside school with that very rigid prescriptive system
in school?
Ms Strong: I think I agree with
you.
Ms Mansfield: I agree. A rigid
system is not helping because it ties everybody into one way of
learning and everybody learns differently and at a different pace
as well. It has already been mentioned that some children are
ready to read much earlier than others and we must go along with
that and not try to force those children who are not yet ready
to read early. They will learn. There is a belief in other countries
that children will learn to read anyway by the time they are six
or seven, but the majority of them learn much more quickly if
they have the other experiences first; if they experience success
quickly and enjoy it, that is what we want for the children.
Q343 Mr Gibb: Do you think that the children
who can decode mechanically are more or less motivated to read?
Ms Mansfield: Less.
Q344 Mr Gibb: Than those children who
cannot decode mechanically.
Ms Mansfield: Than those children
who cannot?
Q345 Mr Gibb: Do you think that those
who can decode mechanically are more or less motivated to read
than those who cannot decode mechanically?
Ms Mansfield: I think they are
less motivated.
Q346 Mr Gibb: Really. So how do you think
the children who cannot decode mechanically can read?
Ms Mansfield: Children learn through
a whole variety of methods. Some may need to be helped to use
some particular method, but I believe that children want to read
and if they are given encouragement they will learn to read.
Q347 Mr Gibb: Do you have evidence for
this? Was testing done, a scientific study which proves you are
right and that the phonics people are wrong?
Ms Mansfield: No.
Q348 Mr Gibb: It is just an assertion.
Ms White: It is a strange question
in a way because, as we have already said, phonics is absolutely
key and we want children to be able to decode; it is very important
that they should be able to decode. We are not marginalising phonics.
What was interesting about your question was that it might very
well depend on the motivation of the child and the personality
of the child. A child who cannot decode may be reading very, very
happily, using the pictures, telling the story, having a wonderful
time being a reader.
Q349 Mr Gibb: But without the pictures,
he could not read the story presumably if you just gave him text
with no pictures.
Ms White: We are looking at picture
books.
Q350 Mr Gibb: Without the pictures this
child could not read.
Ms White: I would not give a young
child a book without pictures at all. The child who is reading
mechanically, decoding very well, might not be in the least interested
in reading, but it could be the other way round.
Q351 Mr Gibb: Have any of you read the
Clackmannanshire study? Have you read it?
Ms White: No, I have not.
Mr Gibb: So those two have not read it,
which surprises me and you two have read it, which I am pleased
about. What did you think about that study?
Chairman: You are not here to comment
on what you are pleased about, Nick.
Q352 Mr Gibb: You seem to have very strong
views on phonics but you have not read one of the key studies
about it, which surprises me, given your position. Leaving that
aside, I want to focus my questions on Neil and Julia. What was
your view of the study and what do you think it shows us about
how you teach reading?
Ms Strong: It is quite some time
since I read it. I felt that it was impressive, that clearly the
teachers who had been involved had found it very useful. I suppose
my feeling on that one, as with many of the others which I have
read on phonics, is that different people get equally enthusiastic
about different methods and I suppose I would agree—this
will keep my job—with what Neil said earlier on, that there
is a range. I get a little bit nervous of the not wanting to hear
the other side of the argument. Certainly that method, enthusiastically
taught, can have significantly good results. I have no doubt about
that. Equally, I can think of other ones which you can show the
same about.
Mr McClelland: I basically agree
with Julia. Whilst we do not claim to be experts on phonics in
the National Literacy Trust, in answer to your question, yes,
I do think the capacity to decode can be motivating and it is
necessary for motivating children to read. However, I do not think
it is enough. It needs to be surrounded by other things. One of
the concerns is that there are potentially so many other models
which utilise synthetic phonics. Just a couple of weeks ago I
went to see Success for All in action, which utilises synthetic
phonics. I saw that in action in a Tower Hamlets school and I
have to say, after spending a morning in that school, I was deeply
impressed by what they were doing. I do not think I am in a position,
and I do not think research is there, to say that particular approach
is any better or worse yet, in terms of any longitudinal evaluation,
than the Clackmannanshire approach, both use synthetic phonics.
Q353 Mr Gibb: A final question about
the issues you raised of children starting school later and being
emotionally developed. Do you agree with the Swiss system where
they do not start formal learning until they are emotionally ready,
but that can vary from child to child? You would have some children
starting formal school at four, some at five, some at six. Do
you agree with that approach?
Ms White: It rather depends what
formal school looks like. In this country we have schooling the
term after the child is five and that can be a very rich and rewarding
experience for some children. For some children formal schooling
can be too formal and restricting. When we talk about formal schooling,
we have to make sure we all have a model about what formal schooling
is. If you are talking about sitting down and that being the only
model of learning that is formal, then yes, the later you start
formal learning the better.
Q354 Mr Gibb: Do you accept that it can
vary from child to child? Some children can start early, some
need to start later.
Ms White: It can vary. If you
come to my centre, and you are more than welcome to visit, you
will find children ranging from 18 months to five years, all of
whom, and that is the joy of the work I do, have very, very different
levels and stages and interests and abilities.
Q355 Mr Gibb: So you think the way we
do it in Britain in a very strict chronological way, with children
going to school at a certain age and moving up the next year,
is wrong and we should have children moving up according to their
emotional development and how well they are doing in the class;
that would then determine whether they moved.
Ms White: It can be very difficult.
Yes, in terms of logistics of course that makes life very difficult,
but in terms of the outcomes for children, I suspect that a model
like that would be very beneficial.
Q356 Paul Holmes: You said at the start
that there was 50 years' worth of analysis of literacy levels
and it has mostly stayed the same. Whether it was the good old
days of the grammars and secondary moderns or the bad old days
of the 1960s and 1970s it has stayed much the same, but that there
has been quite an improvement with the National Literacy Strategy.
Ms Strong: Yes.
Q357 Paul Holmes: In terms of that leap,
what about the research of Durham University which suggests that
if you actually apply standardised tests instead of SATS, there
has not been a leap anyway?
Ms Strong: It is an interesting
question. I suppose you would have to have the researchers in
here with the knowledge of exactly how they had done it to argue
it out. Certainly the Canadian researchers who have looked into
the National Literacy Strategy have a very good record of being
real quality researchers. I suppose I would also base what I am
saying on the responses of teachers. I have done a lot of conferences
over the last few years with a whole range of teachers and when
I asked a whole range of primary school teachers a little while
ago what the literacy hour had done for us and told them that
they could say good or bad about it, I was amazed by how positive
people were. I had a sense that it had given a clear set of objectives,
had raised their expectations, had taught them much more how to
do things and given a much greater sense of where they were going
and progression over the years. All those things, which I do not
think Durham was looking at, I would say—[2]
Q358 Paul Holmes: Is that not saying
the teachers felt happier that they had nice clear directions,
but the Durham test was about whether the kids were actually reading
better according to standardised tests.
Ms Strong: Yes, I know what the
Durham research was about.
Ms Mansfield: It is really important
to find out from children whether it has enabled them not only
to read better, but to enjoy reading and to want to go on doing
so and that is a critical question. Some more research needs to
be done about what children think and how they perceive reading
and literature now after many of them have had several years of
the NLS.
Q359 Chairman: Kathy Sylva is a specialist
adviser to the Committee so perhaps we will ask her.
Ms Mansfield: I am sure she would
do it.
Ms White: I do think it has helped
teachers who have sometimes been very poorly equipped just to
do a very short training. That is to the benefit of the National
Literacy Strategy. I worry very much particularly about the literary
able children in some reception classes in Year 1 who are frankly
quite bored by what is going on. I have spoken to parents whose
children have gone in with great excitement about literacy and
that is very easily dampened. We need to be very careful with
young children that we do not dampen that joy and that passion
for reading, because it is about life-long learning and reading
is a crucial, essential skill.
Chairman: May I thank you for what for
me and the rest of my colleagues has been an excellent session?
Would you remain in contact and would Jo and Nick make up afterwards?
Would you remain in contact with the Committee and we should like
to be able to phone you up or e-mail you for some more observations
as we write up our report. Thank you again.
2 Note: The average reading ability of nine
year olds has remained much the same since 1948. Between 1987
and 1991 there was a small decline in reading standards. But by
1995, standards had returned to the 1987 level. The report compares
the performance in reading of 2,000 nine-year-olds in England
and Wales with pupils of the same age in 27 other countries. England
and Wales came 21st, towards the bottom of a middle group of countries.
They were well behind the top group, which included the United
States, Finland, Sweden, Italy and France, but were only just
below Germany, Canada and Hungary. Back
| 
