Cameron needs to read on

P Cotton

I agree with Fraser. Too much emphasis is put on a one-size-fits-all solution in British Education. Take the National Curriculum. Why should pupils in Londonderry and those in Hackney follow exactly the same prescribed education. Secondly, all the research into Boys' underachievement shows that pushing them to fulfil arbitrary targets can do more harm than good. Many of our boys are being forced to learn to write too early, long before they can physically do so - that's why boys suffer from writers' cramp more commonly than girls. Can you imagine the sense of failure and bitterness this "read by six" target will create in children. If they miss this one, they'll simply ignore the level 5 by age 14 and 5 A-C GCSEs by 16.

George

I suppose this is the difference between 'targets' and 'standards'. There must be minimum standards of performance - in this case it is saying that we can't give the difficult students 'just another year' to learn to read - if they're not going to fall behind they must be be brought up to the standard by a certain deadline.

Lee Jakeman

I think George has hit it on the proverbial head.

TGF UKIP

Fraser, it would be very easy for me to snipe that this is yet a further demonstration of two sides of the same coin New Labour/Blue Labour. However, there is a very real problem here and it is that the permissive, child indulgent left have had hold of education through the LEAs and, much more importantly, the teacher training establishments for at least four decades. The activities of Professors Ted Wragg at Exeter University and Tim Brighouse at Birmingham drove Mrs Thatcher to distraction in the eighties. It was this that made the Tories determined to try to recapture at least the syllabus via the introduction of the National Curriculum. Chris Woodhead and Sir Cyril Taylor are loathed by most teachers and for good reason - they stripped away the veneer and showed what was underneath in terms of motivation and adequacy. Talk to any sensible and balanced teacher and the picture they will generally paint of their colleagues will confirm the Woodhead/Taylor analysis. This Government has gone a long way to inserting its propaganda into the syallabus but this would be as nothing if the whole lot was handed over to teaching unions. There is great danger in handing such important powers down without very tight controls. So often, and not just in education, looking at would be wielding such powers localisation could very easily become Guardianisation.

John Ionides

I agree that the emphasis on synthetic phonics smacks of centralism. On the other hand I think that ensuring that all kids who have the mental capacity to do so are be able to read while they are six (i.e. before their seventh birthday) is entirely sensible. As I would see it, if a school wants to concentrate on another scheme than synthetic phonics then bully for them, AS LONG AS THE KIDS CAN READ BEFORE THEY ARE SEVEN. Otherwise there is simply too great a risk of children slipping through the system altogether. And of course, this is what the European systems where kids supposedly start school later rely on; in these systems, seven is where FORMAL schooling starts - the children already know the basics of reading and writing by this point. I will declare a slight interest in this. I am currently tutoring two 6 year old Russians in English. Their school changed their syllabus away from synthetic phonics towards something allegedly much more trendy and child-friendly. Their mother was concerned (which is how I got roped in), but when pressed as to why the kids were not making progress in class their teacher said that since the school switched courses NONE of the kids seem to be able to get by without extra tuition.

KIRSTY, MERSEYSIDE

FRASER ITS ALL VERY WELL TO SAY LET TEACHERS HAVE TOTAL CONTROL WITH NO INTERFERENCE FROM THE STATE BUT A RECENT REPORT CLAIMED THAT THERE ARE AROUND 17,000 TEACHERS THAT ARE NOT UP TO THE JOB AND SHOULD BE SACKED. SURELY IT WOULD BE WRONG TO GIVE THESE PEOPLE MORE POWER WHEN THEY CANT DO THEIR JOB PROPERLY AS IT IS INCLUDING NOT BEING ABLE TO PERFORM THE BASIC OF TEACHING A CHILD TO READ.

Cogito Ergosum

First point: I would like to see three sets of targets: for the average child, and for those one standard deviation below or above average. This corresponds to IQs of 100, 85, and 115 respectively. (P) Secondly, in reply to P. Cotton: a "one size fits all" is perfectly appropriate for arithmetic and Standard English; and in later years for the sciences and foreign languages.

Praguetory

why should he be prescribing synthetic phonics or anything else to these teachers? Simple, because the evidence shows it works. If this is the one area of education in which the government intervenes I would be happy. Our literacy rates are appalling and stems from a failure to concentrate on the basics.

John Ionides

Sure, PragueTory. I agree that synthetic phonics is a very good first port of call (and I don't really object to the headline as I appreciated that such messages need to be kept simple). The things is, we should be measuring it by the fact that it works not forcing it on schools: as far as I am concerned teachers should be allowed to teach however they like as long as the kids progress all right. To achieve this, phonetic sonics should be the weapon of choice for most teachers but I would be wary of _obliging_ them to use this approach. Ideally the vehicle for change would be based on other policies that I hope are announced this week. If new schools can be set up which _do_ use synthetic phonics and which can be shown to be demonstrably better (more popular) than the rest then the others are going to have to change or loose pupils. In my book, that is a much better driver for change than government dictat.

wonderfulforhisage

With the greatest respect (code for I'm about to be rude) bringing your mother into the argument adds the square root of ........... Sloppy, Sloppy, Sloppy.

Fergus Pickering

My daughter couldn't read until she was nine. I think she could have learned earlier if the school had bothered earlier but they didn't. The great novelist J.L. Carr was a primary school head in the 1950s. He said that only onechild left his school withoutn being able to read because he personally took the ones who couldn't out of class and taught them personally every day until they could. Of course he was a man of great gifts but all the same.

Diablo

Surely the whole point is that if 20% of kids can't read when they leave primary school (is that the right statistic?) and teenagers moving into FE have to be coached in basic maths and English so they can achieve higher level qualifications, then there is something seriously wrong with the way they are being taught? Something has to be done about this urgently and phonics is just one of the tools. Not all children will be able to read fluently at the age of six but if we can get the numbers who can't down to 5% or less then it's got to be better than the current position.

Fraser Nelson

Kirsty - I agree that lots of teachers are substandard. The aim is to allow lots of new schools (the Tories do propose this Swedish-style supply side reforms) so parents would be better-able to avoid ones with bad teachers. My point was that you can't make them good teachers by sending edicts from Whitehall in extra-large type, PragueTory, its not often I disagree with you but its too simplistic to say the evidence shows phonics work. Phonics have been used since (at least) the 1950s but "discovered" by the political class recently (mainly after the Clackmannan report) hence this great Harry Enfield-style "you don't want to do it like that, you want to do it like this" stuff from the Tories. Which I hate. Hisage, apologies if it got too personal for you - but I simply wanted to level with you guys and declare my interest/sources on this. The observation about the late developers, and that phonics works for some kids and not for others is hers (a conclusion forged from 30 years experience of teaching English to primary-aged kids). This is one of the main reasons why I’m so sceptical about the Tories seeking to prescribe one method on teachers who (mostly) know best how to teach their class.

Verity

Wonderful for His Age, Very good! I too reared up at that. In Mexico, where I live, children have learned the basics of reading and writing by age six. A friend who brought her six-year old daughter, who hadn't begun to read and write at school in the US, to Mexico and she had to go into a class one year behind. Is there any reason Fraser Nelson and all the posters above refer to "kids" instead of children? One syllable easier than two?

Erasmus

"Some are late developers, and have trouble distinguishing a p sound from a b sound, for example." Fraser I'm afraid your mother is talking a load of palls -- as advanced by the taxpayer funded leftwing educational establishment It is precisely the least able children that benefit most from synthetic phonics I'm no more in favour of unnecessary regulation than you are -- but teachers have no right to use methods which harm children and which saddle the taxpayer with the longterm costs of mass illiteracy.

EyeSee

So let me get this right. You object to a suggestion that all children should be able to read by the age of seven? Synthetic phonics works (and if it doesn't a teacher who is awake may spot it and should work round it?) And I'm not sure what your version is. Do anything and if it doesn't work, say over 40 years or so, try something else (eg the current Leftist idea)? My version would be; teachers teach and if kids can't read at seven you'd better explain why.

léo burton

it is remarkable how little evidence is necessary to convince people that synthetic phonics "works". could it be that skilful lobbying and publicity is mistaken as evidence? as to all children being able to read by the age of six, one wonders why this obsession with chronological age. many children have not gained complete control over the focusing of their eyes by the age. in some cases lateral dominance has not been established by the age of eight. glue ear, a common impediment to learning to read, is often found (or unfortunately not found) in children aged about 5 or 6 most children learn to read despite the interference of teachers....some children have need of sympathetic and expert help...no children will benefit by the almost absurd activities of lord adonis and david cameron