We can't let our children be victims of reading wars any longer

When NSW Education Minister Sarah Mitchell wrote about the reading wars in The Sydney Morning Herald on Monday, critics took aim at her combative terminology. They argued the "war" was a media creation and that no-one questioned the importance of phonics in teaching early reading.

To blame the media is disingenuous. The teaching of reading is one of the most fiery debates in education and the Herald’s stories on the issue always prompt impassioned responses from both sides of the argument. There’s nothing new about the reading wars; they have waged for centuries between those who believe in the primacy of phonics – the use of sound-letter combinations to enable students to decode words – and those who advocate a whole language approach, which is based on the belief that reading involves recognising an entire word rather than sounding out fragments of it.

The whole language method has been discredited – after all, no-one can reasonably expect a child to memorise the tens of thousands of words necessary to be a functional reader – but has morphed into what is known as balanced literacy. That approach argues that phonics is just one among a suite of strategies in a teacher’s toolkit. Others include using context – "if we are reading about animals, and this word starts with d, what do you think it might be?” – and looking at pictures to help children work out a word.

Balanced literacy has been the approach of many schools and academics, especially those who established their careers during a period when the dominant narrative in the education world was that children could learn to read and write merely by being exposed to language.

It has worked for many; about two thirds of those taught this way can read. But there are some students for whom balanced literacy does not work. Some, and not just those with dyslexia, will not be able to read without a particular focus on letter-sound combinations, known as systematic, synthetic phonics. There are other children for whom balanced literacy works for a while, but who become unstuck in years 3 or 4 when they encounter more complex words and have trouble decoding them.

Reading is the key to all educational success – even maths questions are expressed in sentences. The more a child reads, the more they will learn. And the more a child struggles, the further behind they will fall. About 15 per cent of children fall below the national minimum standard in reading; principals talk about finding primary school students starting year 7 with only a year 2 or 3 reading level. Those students will always struggle to follow the high school curriculum, vastly curtailing their prospects later in life.

There is a simple solution: train teachers in the use of systematic, synthetic phonics so they can ensure that the reading needs of every child in their class are met. The Herald does not argue teachers should be told how to teach, or given a one-size-fits all formula, or forced to abandon all other techniques. But every teacher who stands in front of a kindergarten or stage one class should be able to deploy those strategies, if necessary, and ideological arguments should be set aside in the interests of students.

Sarah Mitchell’s decision this week to make the year 1 phonics screening check compulsory will create a safety net, ensuring that students with weak knowledge of letter-sound combinations are identified and their needs addressed. Her insistence on the vital role phonics plays in teaching reading will also serve as a signal that NSW values evidence and best practice in education.

If nothing else, our schools should be teaching children to read. That they are failing at least 15 per cent of students is not just a shame, it’s an emergency.