This article presents an overview of literacy teaching and learning, based on the author’s extensive research and, in particular, the recently revised and extended Learning to be Literate: Insights from Research for Policy and Practice (Routledge, 2016). It is set against a background in England in which government policy dictates synthetic phonics as the method of teaching reading, supported by a high-stakes phonics test including nonsense words. The article points to the lack of evidence for such an approach, the complex nature of English orthography and the problems for the increasing number of children not learning to read in their first language.
AllingtonR. L. (Ed.). (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
2.
BernsteinB. (1970). A sociolinguistic approach to socialisation: With some reference to educability. In WilliamsF. (Ed.), Language and poverty: Perspectives on a theme (pp. 25–61). Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing.
3.
ClarkM. M. (1976). Young fluent readers: What can they teach us?London, England: Heinemann Educational.
4.
ClarkM. M. (2016). Learning to be literate: Insights from research for policy and practice (Rev. ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. (Original work published 2014)
5.
ClarkM. M. (2016). The effects and costs of four years of the phonics check in primary schools. Primary First, 15, 30–34.
6.
CooterK. S. (2006). When mama can’t read: Counteracting intergenerational illiteracy. The Reading Teacher, 59, 698–702.
7.
CrystalD. (2012). Spell it out: The singular story of English spelling. London, England: Profile Books.
8.
DeaconH.CainK. (2011). What have we learnt from learning to read in more than one language? [Special issue]. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(1), 1–5.
FijalkowJ. (2014). Neoliberal and neoconservative literacy education policies in contemporary France. In GoodmanK. S.CalfeeR. C.GoodmanY. M. (Eds.), Whose knowledge counts in government literacy policies? Why expertise matters. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
GlassG. V. (2008). Fertilizers, pills and magnetic strips: The fate of public education in America. Charlotte, NC: Information Publishing.
12.
GoodmanK. S.CalfeeR. C.GoodmanY. M. (2014). Whose knowledge counts in government literacy policies? Why expertise matters. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
GoswamiU. (2013). Orthography, phonology, and reading development. In Malatesha JoshiR.AaronP. G. (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy. New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
HendersonL. M.ClarkeP. J.SnowlingM. J. (2014). Reading comprehension impairments in Autism Spectrum Disorders. L’annee psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 114, 781–799.
15.
KennedyA. (1984). The psychology of reading. London, England: Methuen.
16.
Malatesha JoshiR.AaronP. G. (2013). Handbook of orthography and literacy. New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). Literacy in the information age: Final report of the international adult literacy survey. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/41529765
18.
SeymourP. H. K. (2013). Theoretical framework for beginning reading in different orthographies. In Malatesha JoshiR.AaronP. G. (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 441–462). New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
SeymourP. H. K.AroM.ErskineJ. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.
20.
SmithF. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
21.
SolityJ.VousdenJ. (2009). Real books vs reading schemes: A new perspective from instructional psychology. Educational Psychology, 29, 469–511.
ValtinR. (2014). About the dubious role of phonological awareness in the discussion of literacy policies. In GoodmanK. S.CalfeeR. C.GoodmanY. M. (Eds.), Whose knowledge counts in government literacy policies? Why expertise matters (pp. 94–110). New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
WalkerM.SainsburyM.WorthJ.BamforthH.BettsH. (2015, June). Phonics screening check evaluation: Final report. National Foundation for Educational Research commissioned by DfE. Retrieved from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/YOPC02.
25.
WhitescarverK.KalmanJ. (2009). Extending traditional explanations of illiteracy: Historical and cross-cultural perspectives. Compare, 39, 407–511.
