Phonics failure ‘is child neglect’

A failure to provide scientifically backed phonics instruction when teaching young children to read has been likened to ‘neglect’.

Monash University inclusive education lecturer Kate de Bruin said explicit and systematic phonics instruction was ‘definitely a more inclusive approach to teaching reading than whole-language approaches’.

A failure to provide scientifically backed phonics instruction when teaching young children to read has been likened to “neglect” in submissions to the disability royal commission.

Dyslexia advocates from multiple states have criticised schools and educators wedded to “whole language” and “balanced literacy” approaches to reading instruction, saying “ineffective” methods were contributing to children becoming “instructional casualties”.

Newly published submissions to the royal commission, which is seeking feedback on the experiences of students with disabilities in education settings, have called for all schools to introduce systematic phonics instruction and embrace the government’s Year 1 phonics screening check.

They also call for improvements to teacher training courses to ensure graduate teachers are taught the science of reading.

SPELD Victoria, a group that advocates for individuals with specified learning difficulties, said the failure to adequately train teachers in evidence-based reading education was a major cause of “educational neglect of children with dyslexia”.

“This has resulted in educational casualties for both dis­advantaged children … as well as those with specified learning ­difficulties,” the group said.

“The neglect of educational needs of students with SLDs is ongoing. Some educators and school leaders are wedded to the philosophical approach of the ‘whole language’ approach to reading as opposed to the phonics approach which has proven efficacy.

“Whole language” and more recently “balanced literacy” teaching emphasises learning whole words and phrases in “meaningful contexts”, such as reading a book or a poem, rather than through stand-alone phonics exercises.

Dyslexia Queensland Support said many students across the state were “instructional casualties due to prevailing teaching methods based on ideology”.

“The teaching of reading in most Queensland classrooms is based on ineffective ‘balanced ­literacy’ methods,” it said in its submission. “Research demonstrates that explicit and direct teaching of evidence-based reading instruction benefits all children and can significantly reduce literacy gaps for students with dyslexia.”

According to SPELD, a systematic phonics approach to teaching reading should be the norm across all schools as it benefited all students, with or without learning difficulties, and would reduce numbers requiring intervention.

Monash University inclusive education lecturer Kate de Bruin said explicit and systematic phonics instruction was “definitely a more inclusive approach to teaching reading than whole-language approaches”. “This is because it teaches in a way that extends the opportunity to learn and succeed to the widest range of students,” Dr de Bruin said.

“Teaching using explicit and systematic instruction is harmful to none but vital for some.”

Dr de Bruin said it was possible a case could be made that when schools did not ensure ­students’ basic rights were met — such as facilitating access and participation in a high-quality education — that it constituted “neglect”. “This is being examined by the disability royal ­commission,” she said.