Now parents see that teaching isn’t easy
As an executive headteacher of a secondary school, I received a letter from a parent that may reflect the views of many parents at this time.
“This is *****’s Mum. I’m sick to my back teeth now with teaching from home. My son is lazy and unmotivated and I actually cannot put up with it any more. I am not paid for this nor do I have a university degree in these subjects. I’m at the point now where either ***** fails everything because I absolutely could not care any more with the stress it’s causing me. You play catch-up when he returns or you get him in the programme for key workers and I will gladly drop him off every day so I don’t have to look at him and his miserable face and lazy attitude whilst he sits just looking at a blank piece of paper and putting no effort in. (fed up Mum)”
We look forward to welcoming back her son and receiving renewed empathy for what teachers try and do every day.
Name and address supplied
It’s the obsession with synthetic phonics alone that’s the problem
Julian Grenier’s article is an unfortunate case of tilting at windmills (”End the reading war - research shows phonics works”, 5 May). Grenier paints as opponents those researchers and educators who question the government’s current obsession with synthetic phonics - first, fast and only. Yet he would be hard-pressed to find any informed commentator who disagrees that phonics is an important element in learning to read. Margaret Clark, described by Grenier as a “campaigner against synthetic phonics”, has, in fact, consistently acknowledged the role of phonics, while insisting that phonics in isolation is not sufficient.
There is also the question of whether evidence shows that synthetic phonics is better than analytic phonics. Significantly, the recommendations of the Education Endowment Foundation to which Grenier refers call for “a systematic phonics programme”, without specifying whether synthetic or analytic. In addition, they call for “a balanced and engaging approach to developing reading, which integrates both decoding and comprehension skills”. It is difficult to see how drilling very young children on isolated letter sounds and nonsense words in preparation for the phonics check at age 6 integrates decoding with understanding. Reading involves communication of ideas, and can’t be taught by mechanistic synthetic phonics alone.
A “balanced and engaging approach to developing reading” is one that would receive wide endorsement. The arguments will be at an end when the Department for Education and Ofsted abandon their current unbalanced insistence on only synthetic phonics for young readers, with the consequent pressure that places on professional judgement and practice.
Nancy Stewart
Chair, board of trustees, TACTYC (Association for Professional Development in Early Years)
