Chris Davis, chair of the 10,000-strong National Primary Headteachers'
Association, said, 'We think that one method of teaching children to read, particularly a formulaic route to learning, could be dangerous.'
He said that in a recent online poll of the association's members on the most effective way to teach reading, just over 2 per cent had voted for synthetic phonics alone. Just under 34 per cent voted for 'a planned blend of phonics, real books and "look-say"', and 58 per cent voted for 'the method or blend of methods that best suited the individual child'.
Teachers' unions also warned against using a 'one-size-fits-all approach'.
Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said, 'Phonics should be just one part of learning to read, along with play, talking and enjoying books.'
Professor Iram Siraj-Blatchford of London's Institute of Education, said, 'Children need rich phonological experiences which can be gained through songs, poems, nursery rhymes, stories, and letter and word games, as well as a print-rich environment. Artificially "teaching" synthetic phonics in large groups of four-year-olds will ultimately be anti-literacy development, and especially for our most disadvantaged children and our summer-born children.'
The Early Years Curriculum Group is calling on early years professionals to refuse to teach whole-class synthetic phonics to four-year-olds. In a letter to Jim Rose, it said, 'We consider that your proposal will undermine the principles expressed in the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage, which highlight the importance of communication skills and a rich language curriculum, particularly as local authorities have been asked by Primary Strategy managers how they will "enforce" your recommendations.
This makes a nonsense of your welcome emphasis on the importance of teachers making informed professional judgments about the appropriate way of working with particular groups of children, and is further compounded by the Government's stated intention to alter the national curriculum accordingly.'
But Professor Greg Brooks of the University of Sheffield said there seemed to be a misconception among many commentators that Mr Rose was advocating a 'phonics only' approach. He said, 'Throughout the review, Rose stresses that, for maximum effect, phonics must be embedded in a broad and rich literacy curriculum - and this is strongly supported by research evidence.'
Professor Brooks added, 'Part of the objection to phonics by five seems to be a fear that this must mean formal, dry-as-dust drill - but this is also a misplaced idea, in my view. There is no need for phonics teaching to be dull and unimaginative - it can be fun, and it should be done on the little-and-often basis that should never turn it into flogging through screeds of examples or a drawn-out Gradgrind.'