Phonics teaching row erupts

A push to improve teacher training courses and ensure children are taught phonics skills is facing mounting opposition.

A push to improve teacher training courses and ensure children are taught phonics skills is facing mounting opposition, with the release of a research paper attackin­g reforms for reinforcing “neoliberal ableism” and signalling a lack of trust in the “ability and creativity” of teachers.

In an article published in the Encyclopedia of Teacher Education, Deakin University’s ­Jennie Duke and Ben Whitburn say “commercial interests” and “so-called science of reading” ­advocates are pushing for univer­sities to teach pre-service teachers a “narrow view” of reading practices.

They also take aim at the federal­ government’s proposed Phonics Health Check for Year 1 students — rolled out in South Australia in 2018 and soon to be trialled in NSW — for creating a divide between “able and not able” children.

Presenting a hypothetical case study of an autistic boy called John, they say the screening check has the potential to invoke a “further medicalisation” of the child, “implying he is unhealthy, in need of treatment and ­therapy” should he fail.

While the authors acknow­ledge the “evidentiary weight” behind teaching the five key reading skills of phonics, phon­emic awareness, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary, “the value and worth of other approach­es” to teaching reading risked being overlooked.

The paper, titled The Paradox of Neoliberal-Ableism and Inclusive­ Literacy Education, published in March, has been slammed by literacy and inclusive education experts for downplaying the importance of strong literacy skills for good life outcomes.

Pamela Snow of La Trobe University School of Education dismissed the argument that teaching children in accordance with evidence-based practices amounted to “ableism”.

“What they’re effectively saying­ is, ‘some kids find this hard; we have got to dumb the whole thing down for everyone so nobody is seen to be failing’,” said Professor Snow.

“They’re advocating a way of thinking that will put kids who are disadvantaged or who have a disability on a trajectory away from achievement. There are not a lot of jobs for illiterate workers.”

Linda Graham of the Queensland University of Technology’s Centre for Inclusive Education said the authors appeared to have misunderstood both inclusive education and the role of phonics in teaching reading.

She said systematic synthetic phonics, which teaches letter-sound decoding skills, had been a neglected aspect of reading instructio­n and advocates were pushing for it to be employed as a frontline strategy because research­ had shown it was the most effective method for the largest number of children, meaning fewer children would require ­remediation.

“What the science of reading advocates know is that if we adopt instruction that is almost universal in its effectiveness — in that it works for around 95 per cent of students, instead of 80 per cent or less — we have fewer stud­ents needing tier-two or tier-three remediation,” she said.

The backlash comes as university education faculties are under pressure to meet accredit­ation standards designed to bolster­ the capacity of graduate teachers to teach reading, including phonics instruction.

The standards followed public­ation of research showing just 5 per cent of units across 60 teaching courses had a specific focus on teaching beginning readers to read.

Neither Dr Duke nor Dr ­Witburn responded to requests for comment.