Learning to be literate: Insights from research for policy and practice

Learning to be literate in the 21st century

By the time they start school, young children growing up in a literate environment are already forming hypotheses about the print around them. They interpret environmental print, watch television, may play computer games and be able to manipulate a mobile phone. Even in a class where no child can yet read, there will be a wide range of understanding of concepts of print and the critical features of written language. A few children enter school already reading silently and with understanding, others need support, including of print in a range of settings to enable them to master language in this new and ‘disembedded’ medium. Kennedy, in The Psychology of Reading, (1984) gives a brief history of the development of writing systems, with interesting illustrations from different cultures and through the ages. A study of the development of our alphabetic writing system is helpful in giving insight into some of the early assumptions of young children as they come to grips with the conventions of written language. Their individual development may mirror in some aspects that development.

In Spell It Out: The Singular Story of English Spelling, David Crystal (2012) traces the development in English towards the convention of a correct spelling for words, claiming that many of the features of English spelling were recommended by individual writers. Spelling, he claims, is a matter of internalising letter sequences in words, and the more opportunities children have to see these sequences the better.

Orthographies and literacy

There is surprisingly little research on the difference in complexity when learning to read in languages with a more or less regular relationship between the sounds and spelling of words or of learning to read in a language that is not your first language. Seymour, Aro, and Erskine (2003) studied the foundations of literacy in a number of European countries with more or less regular spelling. In the majority of European countries, children became accurate and fluent at the foundation level before the end of their first school year. The exceptions were those learning to read in Portuguese, Danish and particularly in English. These findings did not appear to be related to the age of starting school.

A valuable source of information on the impact of different orthographies on learning to be literate is the Handbook of Orthography and Literacy (Malatesha Joshi & Aaron, 2013). Seymour (2013) points out that

Languages differ in their phonological and morphological structures, and these aspects may influence the way in which literacy is acquired. Equally, the languages have different writing systems (orthographies) that vary in the way in which speech and meaning are represented and, indeed in the consistency and logic of the relationship. (pp. 441–442)

He cites Chinese and Japanese, Hebrew and Arabic in one group, and alphabetic scripts in which the letters represent the vowel and consonant phonemes in another. These latter he divides into shallow orthographies in which the relationship is coherent and consistent (such as Finnish) and deep orthographies ‘in which the correspondences are variable, inconsistent, sometimes arbitrary and subject to lexical and morphological influences (English for example)’ (p. 442). He argues that in shallow orthographies, ‘it seems natural to teach reading by synthetic phonic methods by which letters are decoded to sounds and then combined to form larger units such as syllables’ (p. 442). In deep alphabetic orthographies, such as English, he argues for a ‘combined method by which children learn basic alphabetic decoding procedures and at the same time master a “sight vocabulary” of familiar words’ (p. 442).

Goswami (2013) states that it is simpler for children learning to read in consistent orthographies such as Italian, Spanish, Turkish, Greek and German, and they seem to acquire reading at a faster rate than children learning to read in inconsistent orthographies such as English.

The issues, highlighted by Seymour and Goswami, make the level of discussions in England around learning to read, appear simplistic when they fail to take account of the complexity of English orthography or the fact that by 2011, at least half the world’s children learnt to read in their second language (Deacon & Cain, 2011), a percentage likely to increase.

Learning to read in English

The English language is not one where there is a one-to-one visual representation of all the sounds we speak. It is a more difficult code for young children to break than languages with a shallow orthography. Children need to appreciate the critical features of letters, words and punctuation. I and a are letters and words; L and l represent the same letter; the function of ! and ? differs from that of I; 2 and two are both numbers, but one is also a word. Direction takes on a new significance in writing: D and d are similar in ways that b, d and p are not.

Some words are easy to represent in writing such as cat and dog. Some of the commonest words in written English are not phonically regular and may not be easily represented pictorially as they are not nouns, such as the and said. Some words are easy to pronounce, while for others, the context determines how they are pronounced, such as read, bow and wind.

There are many purposes for which written language is the medium of communication. Stories have a continuous theme, an introduction, implicit rather than explicit connectedness, and resolution or ending. Non-fiction has a very different format from narrative text, requiring additional skills if children are to appreciate the implications of the layout, for example, columns, different sizes of font and diagrams contributing to the meaning. Each type of written language requires its own strategies and insights.

Learning to be literate: insights from research

The first edition of my book Learning to be Literate: Insights from Research for Policy and Practice, self-published in 2014, won the United Kingdom Literacy Association (UKLA) Academic Book Award 2015. Routledge has published a revised edition in 2016 (Clark, 2014/2016). Most chapters were based on edited versions of previously published material, selected because of their continuing relevance or because insights from the researches had been ignored by policymakers. In Part I, the key findings of two of my early researches are highlighted and related to other researches, Reading Difficulties in Schools, a community study and Young Fluent Readers, a study of children who already read silently with understanding when they started school at 5 years of age (Clark, 1976). Such studies should lead us to a more accurate perception of whether various deficits are indeed causal factors in reading failure. We may find that some fluent readers are highly successful in spite of such disabilities. In Part II, the author/researcher becomes practitioner and provides research-based insights, illustrating ways in which creative environments can stimulate young children learning to read and write.

The impact of politics on literacy policy is the focus in Part IV, updated to 2015 for the revised edition. The main focus is on England in the years since 2006, as synthetic phonics has become the required method of teaching reading, and a high-stakes phonics check introduced in 2012 has to be taken by all children in Year 1 (around 6 years of age) and retaken the following year by those who fail to reach the pass mark of 32 out of 40. However, the discussion is widened to include evidence from two books critiquing government policies in the United States. The first by Allington (2002) evaluates the evidence base for the National Reading Panel, one of the reports cited by the Department for Education (DfE) in England as supporting its policy. The second by Goodman, Calfee, and Goodman (2014), critiques developments not only in the United States but also in England, Scotland, France and Germany. It is clear that commercial interests are gaining an increasingly powerful place in government policies in many parts of the world, including many developing countries. A disquieting picture is painted of the power wielded by large commercial organisations to influence government literacy policies, often falsely claiming a research basis for the policy.

The dangers of basing, or modifying a country’s literacy policy, on international surveys, even those as large-scale and well-planned as Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), are considered in chapter 19, as politicians either preen themselves or impetuously making major changes should their country’s ranking appear to be falling. My focus is on sampling issues rather than on the results of a particular survey, thus it has wide implications. Clearly, the concerns I express are not confined to PIRLS or to the interpretation of the results for the United Kingdom. Glass in 2008 has analysed the claims of a crisis in American Public Education by politicians based on internal tests and international surveys. He claims that when fluctuations in scores from one international survey to the next are examined, they reveal that the source of the inconsistencies arise from vagaries of how the tests were administered, the samples selected, non-response rates, the selection of replacement schools or other variables unrelated to the levels of attainment in the respective nations.

Chapter 20 includes some consideration of adult literacy and developments in Europe. In 2011, the European Commission set up an independent panel of experts from 11 countries to assess how to raise literacy levels. The Report of the European Working Party ‘EU High Level Group of Experts on Literacy’ (2012). A number of recommendations are made, including the need: ‘To ensure that all newly qualified teachers obtain a master’s degree with competences in, for example, critical evaluation of literacy research’, a far cry from current developments in policy in many countries.

In the final chapter of Learning to be Literate, the discussion is widened to include other languages and orthographies with references from Handbook of Orthography and Literacy (Malatesha Joshi & Aaron, 2013).

Does it matter if some children cannot read at seven? Are they not reading because of a conscious policy to delay reading instruction and extend the period of oral communication or are they failing in spite of a conscious policy of instruction? There is a place and an important place for assessment in the teaching of reading, provided it is diagnostic and leads to monitoring of progress and appropriate action. Learning to be Literate records changes in emphasis in literacy research, insights we could have gained and lessons we should have learnt. Hopefully, it might put to rest some myths, including those perpetuated by successive governments, where they fly in the face of a wealth of research evidence.

Children and beginning to read

Just as we are in danger of undervaluing the role of the parents, so also we are in danger of failing to appreciate the characteristics which the child brings to the reading task. To quote Smith as early as 1971,

Two things are perhaps surprising about the skills and knowledge that a child brings with him when he is about to learn to read: the sheer quantity and complexity of his ability, and the small credit that is usually given. (p. 223)

It is salutary to bear in mind there are children who might have failed some tests of reading readiness, who may by 3 or 4 years of age already be fluent readers. Readiness of the school for the child should now be given as much attention as readiness of the child for the school. In my study of children who were already fluent readers when they started school, I was impressed by a number of aspects of their fluent reading. These might not have occurred to me had I confined my attention only to children who had learned to read in the school group situation. One aspect that worried me was the parents’ embarrassment that they had sent their child to school able to read. Why should we make parents feel guilty if their child comes to school able to read and ashamed if they come not ready to read?

Not all children in my study were highly intelligent; not all their parents were professionals. Indeed, not all had a range of interesting and stimulating children’s books for their first experiences of printed material and they had not had the benefit of any structured reading scheme. Unlikely materials like car numbers, the daily newspaper, the Radio Times, an old pack of lexicon cards and even television advertisements acted as a stimulus to these children and could do to other children. One important common factor for these children seems to have been an interested adult. One characteristic of these children was their awareness of what they could and could not do. This study was published as Young Fluent Readers: What Can They Teach Us? (Clark, 1976).

Reading and writing, a reciprocal relationship

Just as purpose, and purpose seen by the child, is important as a motivating force in learning to read, so purpose is important in written communication. This gives point to the teaching of handwriting and spelling as aspects of written communication, as tools. Though spelling can be caught by some, it can also be taught to the others. This is most effective when the instruction is systematically organised, taking into account the linguistic probabilities of the English language, and, the child’s needs within their written communication for the words being taught.

If one approaches the teaching of reading from an analysis of the skills and knowledge the children have already acquired when they begins learning to read and of the additional knowledge and skills required for fluent reading, one may be led to the conclusion that some approaches to the teaching of reading miss crucial features required for the development of such a skill. Too great an emphasis may be placed on training skills such as precise visual scanning of letters or words, while the important features may indeed be discrimination and anticipation rather than identification.

Considerable emphasis has been placed by both teachers and parents on the value of reading aloud to young children as a preparation for early reading experience. The focus has often been on its motivational value, rather than its important role in sensitising children to the features of written language through an oral medium.

The concept of compensatory education

Too often, attention is still centred on the deficiencies of the child in the learning situation and the inadequacies of the parents. Bernstein’s quote from 1970 is still relevant:

Compensatory education implies that something is lacking in the family, and so in the child, and that as a result the children are unable to benefit from schools (pp. 53–54) . . . We should stop thinking in terms of compensatory education but consider instead most seriously and systematically the conditions and contexts of the educational environment. (p. 55)

We in education are too ready to accept the successes and ascribe the failures to the parents.

Contributions of the home

In my research on fluent readers, the embarrassment of a number of parents at sending their child to school already reading fluently was distressing. The evidence that the young fluent readers appeared to read silently even in the early stages should serve as a challenge as to the function of reading aloud by children. Can we any longer assume that the natural progression is from reading aloud to reading softly then only later, silently? Oral reading by the child may give sensitive teachers insights into children’s development of self-correction strategies provided the adult listens to the children and encourages them to predict, using all the cues at their disposal.

These young fluent readers’ developing competence in spelling also has lessons for us. They were beginning to show a competence in spelling, also an ability to attempt words using a plausible substitute spelling, how the word might have been spelt in English. Equally important, they knew what they did not know. Again, the fact that spelling was being caught by these children does not mean that other children may not need to be taught to spell. Spelling is an eminently teachable subject approached through the route of plausible alternatives in the language being studied. Many poor spellers do not even know when they are right!

An important reason for reminding readers of findings such as these is that sadly current government policy seems to ignore the needs and even existence of children such as the ‘young fluent readers’ who enter school already reading silently with understanding.

Language and literacy

It is interesting to speculate why story reading to a child, presenting as it does written language in oral form to the child in an interactional setting, should provide such a valuable stimulus to reading and the production of meaningful, interesting written language by the child. A study of the text of the most effective and popular authors for children gives some insight into the contribution of such experiences to children’s written language development. Anything more than a superficial glance reveals that such stories are not only a rich source of language but also present subtle, continuous themes with much implicit as well as explicit meaning, with humour, and play on words. Much of importance is either not stated, or understated, and there is often rich direct speech as the characters interact with each other (see Chapters 6 and 10 in Clark, 2016).

High-frequency words: their contribution to reading

There are a number of reasons why we should spend time encouraging young children to recognise the commonest words in English in a variety of meaningful contexts.

Based on research in 1960s, McNally and Murray prepared a list of the commonest key words in written English. They claimed that these 100 words account for about half the total words in everyday reading material. It is worth noting that a further 100 words contribute only 10 percent to 15 percent more of the words, and beyond this, it is a case of diminishing returns, as the type of reading material strongly influences the remaining words that appear frequently in a particular text (see Chapter 9 in Clark, 2016).

Solity and Vousden (2009) analysed the structure of adult literature, children’s real books and reading schemes and examined the demands they make on children’s sight vocabulary and phonic skills. They used the McNally and Murray 100 commonest word list from the 1960s in their analysis and still found it valuable. According to McNally and Murray, the following 12 words account for about 25 percent of the total words:

a and he I in is it of that the to was

While high-frequency words account for about half the total words, it is essential to be able to recognise speedily also the words that appear much less frequently. These account for over 90 percent of the different words in written English. For this reason, children, if they are to read with understanding, need to develop strategies for speedy recognition of words they have not met before. It is with this latter aspect that a grasp of phonics will assist them. However, there is evidence that this is better practised in context, not in isolation. Time spent in some schools on practising pseudo words in anticipation of the phonics check, as is happening in England, could surely be better spent studying the features of real written English, especially as the home language of many children is different from that used in school.

Synthetic phonics and literacy learning: government policy in England, 2006–2016

The powerful place of commercial interests in determining governments’ choice of policies, the materials recommended, and even the funding for the teaching of reading is disturbing. The government in England and Ofsted have since 2010 stressed that the method of teaching reading should be phonics, and synthetic phonics, rather than analytic phonics, claiming this is backed by research evidence. While claims have been made over the years for one best method of teaching reading, it has not necessarily been the same method. Following a careful analysis of existing evidence, the following seem legitimate claims:

Synthetic phonics has as its focus the relationship between letters and sounds and differs from analytic phonics in that these features are taught in isolation rather than inferring sound–symbol relationships from sets of words. Since June 2012, a phonics check of 40 words (20 pseudo words and 20 real words) has been administered to all Year 1 children in state schools in England. The claim was that this check would ‘identify pupils with below expected progress in phonic decoding’. Those pupils who failed to achieve the pass mark of 32 were to receive intervention and retake the test the following year. DfE made available a large sum of money for matched funding from which schools could purchase synthetics phonics materials and training from a recommended list of providers. See, ‘The effects and costs of four years of the phonics check in primary schools’ (Clark, 2016). Here, attention will be drawn to three key aspects so far ignored by the DfE.

The dictates from DfE are having a major impact on practice in schools in England, removing the freedom of practitioners to adopt the approaches they think appropriate for their individual children. The recommendations by Ofsted (the inspection body in England) lay emphasis on the importance of checking that these edicts are followed in all schools, and, in training institutions.

Whose knowledge counts in government literacy policies: at what cost?

Information from the United States, France, Germany and developing countries show similar developments to those in England. This is based on two edited books from the United States, the first published in 2002 edited by, and with chapters by, Allington. The other is edited by Goodman et al. (2014). Concerns at government policies are expressed in both books by a number of distinguished researchers. Allington and his fellow researchers provide a critique of interpretations of the National Reading Panel in the United States, one of the sources cited by the current government in England as supporting synthetic phonics as the method of teaching reading.

Allington cites an interesting research, backed by evidence from other studies, where the researchers found that

the reading of poor kids improved just as much as the reading of their wealthier peers, during the school year . . . But every summer the poor kids’ reading achievement experienced a setback. (p. 13; italics in original)

He claims that the best indicator is whether the children read during the summer months. He also refers to research evidence that, ‘Expert teachers simply ignore mandates and go about teaching all their students to read’ (p. 17). However, in England as well as in the United States, it is becoming increasingly difficult for teachers to use their professional judgement and ‘ignore mandates’.

Elaine Garan presents a critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Phonics, and commenting on this, Allington states,

It is one thing when profiteers and ideologues (sometimes one and the same) distort the research to fit their agendas, but it is something quite different when the distortion carries the imprimatur of the federal government. (p. 91)

Joanne Yatvin, who was a member of the National Reading Panel, wrote a minority report, and on page 126, Allington quotes from her minority report that

Summaries of, and sound bites about, the Panel’s findings will be used to make policy decisions at a national, state, and local levels. Topics that were never investigated will be misconstrued as failed practices. Unanswered questions will be assumed to have been answered negatively.

This is pertinent in other countries also.

Part I of Whose Knowledge Counts in Government Literacy Policies? Why expertise matters (Goodman et al., 2014) reveals similar concerns among professionals in other countries about who determines literacy policies and at what cost. Jacques Fijalkow (2014) points out that France has a highly centralised state system; programmes are decided in Paris and ‘imposed throughout the country by means of an impressive array of training and control policies’ (p. 47). He deplores the fact that those whose knowledge should count does not and asks, ‘How do people with knowledge that should count make themselves heard? (p. 65). Renate Valtin (2014) cites similar concerns in Germany where politicians prefer the advice of those who offer simplistic solutions, ignoring the wealth of research available. Her final comment is

In kindergarten, time should be devoted to oral language development and to experiences with the functions of written language by providing a rich literacy environment. (p. 106)

Kenneth Goodman traces the development of the programmes holding sway in the United States and states that ‘the issues that should be the ones being debated are not the ones politicians and the press are highlighting’ (p. 23). The following quote seems to resonate well beyond the United States:

They chose to attack reading methodology and write into law a simplistic phonics model as a key to making public education appear to be failing. They are responsible for the emphasis on testing, the labelling of schools, and the punishments, which are designed to lead to their privatization. (p. 26)

Goodman refers to the development and spread of a particular screening test, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Learning Literacy Skill (DIBELS), a series of sub-tests, each of which takes only 1 minute to administer. Goodman claims that there is widespread agreement among reading authorities and psychometricians that DIBELS is a very bad test, yet the test is administered three times a year, and those who fail are taught the skills of the test and retested. He notes a conflict of interest as the authors of that test were sitting on committees judging applications by states for funds and making the adoption of the test a condition of approval for state funding. A further worrying development is that a similar test, Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA), has been developed and translated into English, French, Spanish and several native languages. The story becomes even more disturbing, as not only has this test been used in developing countries but also, in Senegal, according to Goodman, where the home language is French for only 2 percent of the pupils, they were tested in French!

As may be seen from the information cited above, England is not the only country where evidence from research is being ignored, simplistic tests are driving the curriculum, available resources for schools are being spent on commercial products linked to the tests and schools are being ranked on the basis of such tests. In the words of Fijalkow, ‘How do people with knowledge that should count make themselves heard?’

Adult literacy

The level of literacy among many pupils when they leave statutory education may be higher than in the past, but some pupils and particular groups in European Union (EU) countries still leave school without the competence to enable them to function in an advanced society. Many make every attempt to hide their inadequacy. There is no evidence that school systems that rush to introduce the formal teaching of reading at an earlier and earlier age achieve higher levels of literacy among the adult population. Indeed, formal reading programmes introduced at an early age may result in negative attitudes towards reading, particularly in boys, who may read rarely and thus not maintain even their limited literacy skills into adulthood.

There is evidence of intergenerational illiteracy that where parents cannot read they are likely to have children with limited literacy. In some instances, this may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, where professionals have too limited aspirations for some pupils that may lead to lowered expectations, even a more limited curriculum for some groups of pupils. The involvement of parents in intervention programmes, even those with limited literacy themselves, has been shown to have the greatest success. Furthermore, the parents may also be stimulated to become ‘functionally literate’, breaking cycles of deprivation and enabling them to achieve longer term employment and a richer cultural life for themselves (see ‘When mama can’t read: counteracting intergenerational illiteracy’, Cooter, 2006).

Pupils in secondary schools who are described as illiterate are unlikely to be completely unable to read; rather, they have such a low level of competence that they are unlikely to read for pleasure or to understand the complex meanings in various forms of written language. As adults, they will avoid situations requiring them to read, and their level of literacy will become lower rather than be maintained. Many adults with limited literacy make every attempt to hide this; thus, even where support programmes are available, there may be problems in identifying those adults who need support. Limited access to everyday contact with written language and a lack of access to other readers and writers who might support literate competence create a complex obstacle to literacy (Whitescarver & Kalman, 2009). Yet, there is a link between adult learning and civic activities such as voting, and those with the poorest literacy skills often lead an isolated life.

Literacy in the Information Age (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2000) is a valuable source of information. The data were collected between 1994 and 1998, from a nationally representative sample in 20 countries (age group: 16–65 years). There was a wide variation between countries in the extent of inequality in the population distribution of literacy skills; countries with the highest levels had been most successful in bolstering the literacy levels of their least advantaged. Initial education was the main factor in improving the literacy levels, particularly of youth from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (p. 89). Even in the most economically advanced societies, a ‘literacy deficit’ was reported, with many adults without a suitable minimum skill to cope with the demands of modern life and work.

Final comment

Unless we consider the approach to literacy and issues faced in other countries, we are in danger of failing to appreciate the extensive educational possibilities that our own school system denies us. In Britain, we assume children should begin school at 5 years of age and that all our children should be reading by the age of 7 years. To what extent is any disadvantage to those who fail to do so merely the result of our particular school approach to education or our failure to cater for children’s varied needs and individual rates of development?