20 September 2024 – this post is written by Debbie Hepplewhite…
First of all, what IS the ‘English Hubs’ initiative of the Department for Education (DfE, 2018) in England?
This is the description on the Government site:
——————————————-
‘English Hubs
English hubs offer a range of support and continuing professional development (CPD) to primary schools to improve the teaching of early reading, with a particular focus on systematic synthetic phonics, early language and reading for pleasure.
This consists of tailored support from a literacy specialist, CPD and funding to buy phonics and early language resources.
There are 34 English hubs.
Cost
The support offered by English Hubs is mostly free and funded by the Department for Education (DfE). Contact your English hub for details.’
———————————————
Education journalist, Warwick Mansell, is investigating England’s DfE English Hubs’ initiative: the cost and funding arrangements, the phonics programmes and personnel that dominate and appear to be favoured in the initiative, and the total absence of information, transparency and accountability (including membership of the English Hubs’ Council overseeing the project, the initial English Hubs’ Training Centre now disbanded, and the DfE-validation process of 45 systematic synthetic phonics programmes).
Subsequent to Warwick’s investigation which has necessitated a ‘Freedom of Information’ request, in September 2024 the DfE revised their previous policy of English Hubs council members’ anonymity and has now published a full list of prior and current membership. It’s about time – and long overdue (and no doubt thanks to Warwick’s investigation). Much more information, transparency and accountability should be forthcoming.
I highly recommend subscribing to Warwick’s online education-based journalism via his site, Education Uncovered . Warwick investigates worrying issues and questions of various developments such as the growth and conduct of Multiple Academy Trusts (MATs) and Ofsted reporting in England.
At the time of writing this post, Warwick has published three reports featuring phonics and the English Hubs. His latest dated 17th September 2024 begins:
‘An organisation advising the Department for Education on a £100 million project to improve children’s reading and writing has seen an overwhelming majority of its members linked, directly or indirectly, to two companies which have been making millions of pounds from phonics support, Education Uncovered can reveal.
Teachers and consultants with links to the Read Write Inc (RWI) or Little Wandle (LW) phonics schemes have constituted 17 of the 23 members to have served on the DfE’s English Hubs Council, which since 2019 has been advising on matters including schools’ phonics provision.
The full list of members has only been disclosed now, five-and-a-half years after the council came into being, after this website asked for it under Freedom of Information (FOI). The application was initially rejected by the DfE. But it has now released the details, after I appealed.
The council featured at its inception both Dame Ruth Miskin, who owns the Read Write Inc product, and the two co-founders of what would go on to become its fast-growing rival Little Wandle, with developers of no other phonics programmes represented, among more than 40 now accredited by the DfE to operate in schools
Most other council members have been linked much less directly with the two programmes, through the schools where they work using RWI or LW products. However, other firms operating in this “market” are concerned that organisations linked to RWI or LW may have benefited from influence over phonics strategy, and through involvement in the wider English Hubs initiative. RWI and LW have made nearly £20 million in profit in total for the organisations running them over the four years to 2023.
The DfE has been asked about potential conflicts of interest concerning members sitting on the council and having links to phonics products. It told me this afternoon: “The Department for Education takes conflicts of interest seriously. This is made clear in the terms of reference for the Hubs Council and we maintain a conflicts of interest register for members.
“We do not consider a member of the Hubs Council using one of the validated phonics programmes in their school to be a conflict. Where members are more closely linked to a phonics programme, the Chair will consider whether the member can participate in the discussion or should withdraw.” ‘
——————————-
[Debbie continuing…] Unbeknown to people, I myself have challenged the DfE over various matters, repeatedly, behind the scenes. I concluded long ago that although the DfE English Hubs present, in effect, as an ‘outreach’ project to schools in the various regions, in reality the project is so lacking in public-domain information, transparency and accountability, that in my opinion it is unambitious and ‘inwards-looking’ in an era when any beneficial information and training could easily be shared widely via the internet – not only nationally, but also internationally.
I also have much to say regarding my experiences, and the experiences of other phonics programme developers, of the unaccountable DfE ‘validation’ process. I formally complained and there was an investigation by someone at the top of the DfE (and yet the complaint was about the DfE) – the process and outcome was farcical – and totally unaccountable. That is for a later date.
I will develop my thoughts more fully to share with people over time, but at the moment I’ll focus on Warwick’s important journalism as HE DESERVES FULL CREDIT FOR IT. Below is a very brief summary of my observations to date on just some aspects of ‘what’s gone on’ these past years. Below, then, is what I have to say for now …
From the outset of the English Hubs’ initiative, the set-up was bound to influence teachers in the direction of specific SSP programmes. Whether this was simply misguided and well-intentioned – or deliberate – this is nevertheless undeniable.
The DfE has consistently denied any bias despite the fact that I, and others, have challenged the DfE officially and repeatedly – including with evidence from concerned teachers and headteachers being told which programme/s to use against their better judgement and personal preferences.
Evidence of programme bias began with the very notion of English Hubs being based in schools using limited specific programmes. Additionally, the original DfE terms of reference banned any presence at the regional English Hubs’ ‘showcase events’ of any phonics providers even if their talks were ‘generic’. Thus, people with significant longevity and success in the phonics and literacy field, and decades-long pioneering for the need of research-informed explicit and systematic phonics provision, were effectively prevented from sharing their considerable expertise within an initiative aimed at supporting schools in need of raising their standards of literacy. These showcase events include model lessons with children using the English Hubs schools’ phonics programmes – how could this not influence regional schools!
The original EH Council membership was dominated by people associated with specific phonics programmes and this has continued throughout the Council’s life. It is also concerning that membership of the Council was kept from the public along with any findings and developments of the English Hubs’ work and their partner schools. Considering the initiative uses ‘public money’, this lack of transparency, accountability, and actually a very inwards-looking process, is not acceptable.
Further, when Ruth Miskin was commissioned by the DfE to provide the English Hubs’ ‘Training Centre’ for a period of time, the application was for ‘Ruth Miskin and Associates’. Miskin’s own set-up effectively kept out those Associates (who, again, were known and long-established phonics specialists with a variety of alternative programmes and practices). Ruth established an English Hubs’ online ‘portal’ which was not accessible to benefit all schools, nor open to the Associates – and therefore, again, inwards-looking and completely lacking in transparency.
——————————
[PLEASE NOTE: I’m copying and pasting an article published in Schools Week in case this article is deleted at some point – as I note other links referencing ‘Ruth Miskin AND ASSOCIATES‘ are no longer accessible. However, this appeared in Schools Week (by John Dickens, 4 June 2019):
‘Firms appointed to run English hubs training centre
A firm run by a phonics expert championed by Nick Gibb will lead a new training centre to develop literacy specialists – as two more English hubs are announced. Ruth Miskin Training will run the centre to provide training for up to 34 English hubs leaders and 180 literacy specialists. The firm is run by Ruth Miskin, who was appointed a CBE in the New Year’s Honours and whose work on phonics has been praised by schools minister Nick Gibb.
The centre will focus on three priority areas: age-appropriate phonics provision; early language development; and promoting a love of reading. The government said the appointment was made after a competitive tender process, and funding comes from the £26.3 million announced for English hubs by former education secretary Justine Greening last year.
The total number of English hubs has now also reached 34 after two more were announced today. Horsendale School in Nottingham will open the Flying High English Hub, and Heather Avenue Infant School in Norfolk will open the Wensum Trust English Hub.
Gibb said: “Our English Hubs programme is already helping children up and down the country benefit from the highest standards of teaching expertise. That is why I’m delighted to see two more hubs opening, helping to spread best practice in the teaching of reading.”
The Department for Education said literacy specialists will be given training in the principles for implementing all systematic synthetic phonics teaching; the conditions necessary for early language development; and habits that build a strong reading school.
They will also then receive specific training in the phonics programme the partner school is using; and in a new free language and storytelling programme.
The centre will be run in association with I CAN, the National Literacy Trust, Sounds Write, Jolly Phonics, Sounds Discovery, Phonics International and Floppy Phonics.
Miskin has also received government funding under the teaching and leadership fund and the opportunity areas scheme.
The work of the English Hubs and the training centre will be overseen by an English Hubs Council that includes leading phonics and reading experts and headteachers. The names are yet to be announced.’
—————————
Over four years later, thanks to the investigating and Freedom Of Information request by Warwick Mansell, the DfE has now published the names of past and current English Hubs Council Members and it is plain to see that the membership has been dominated by people associated with the Read Write Inc and Little Wandle phonics programmes and training provision.
In an effort to open up the field to a range of SSP programmes, the DfE conducted a new ‘validation’ round which proved to be unaccountable, totally lacking in transparency, not challengeable in any way – and at the level of intense ‘micro-managing’ by unknown validators. The ‘expertise’ of these mysterious validators is thus open to doubt and cannot be examined. The validation process caused great hardship, stress and financial cost to many that was arguably not justified – and to this day formal complaints have not been allowed about the judgements themselves – so ZERO DfE transparency and accountability! We (Phonics International Ltd) submitted a Freedom Of Information request for the names of the validators and for the terms of reference for their appointment. The DfE would not release these names. So, phonics programmes including some long-standing and already highly successful programmes were ‘failed’ at first in the validation process and there was no mechanism to challenge the judgements of these anonymous ‘validators’. At a later date, it transpired many of the phonics programmes were ‘failed’ but with no transparency and accountability. I myself went through a formal complaints procedure where I could show unacceptable and unaccountable practices from beginning to end of the validation ‘process’ (the ‘judgement’ was not allowed to be challenged) but my complaints whilst fully understood and acknowledged on the one hand, were not upheld on the other hand, with ‘no further communication‘ allowed.
[PLEASE NOTE: My Phonics International and No Nonsense Phonics programmes were submitted at an early stage and sailed through the validation process. My suspicion is that there was an earlier validation panel to oversee the initial submissions – but then a later validation panel with different members who had a differing ‘understanding’ of what constitutes a quality SSP programme. Of course all the secrecy and unaccountability means we do not know the truth of the matter.]
A further DfE commission for SEND training and provision has now been challenged by a collective of phonics providers pointing out the blatant unfairness of the DfE’s tender process and conduct – and questioning the outcome of The Wandle Trust winning the commission. I have evaluated the DfE-validated Little Wandle Letters and Sounds Revised phonics programme and its guidance, and found it very wanting in both its content and rationale. To make matters worse, LW personnel continue to claim in their promotion and advertising that this programme is ‘not for profit’ which is astonishing – and yet the DfE is satisfied that this claim is acceptable. This warrants a transparent, public investigation to evaluate the programme itself and experiences for teachers, children and their parents/carers, results, and a cost-benefit analysis compared to other programmes and provision. As I can show that the Little Wandle programme and training itself is impoverished and found wanting, the DfE has misguidedly as well as unfairly awarded this latest SEND commission.
Where is the professional knowledge, understanding and observations of the experiences and findings of the children themselves of these two dominant programmes and other phonics programmes and approaches? And where is the cost-benefit analysis – cost financially to schools, cost to professional development, cost to the children, and financial cost to the public purse! Has there even been any form of cost-benefit analysis?
Where is the ‘professional curiosity’ of researcher organisations, academics and universities associated with education, teacher-training, special needs and standards of literacy? Are people even aware of the similarities and differences of phonics programmes, associated training and routine provision for the children themselves?
The picture of phonics training provision in England:
It is time for me to share some of my observations and understanding about Read Write Inc, Little Wandle Letters and Sounds Revised – and their associated training provision. I am going to challenge what has become the pattern for England – the formula – for initial phonics training and continued professional development (CPD). This is now a highly expensive, protracted, licence-based, portal-based, training industry. Ruth Miskin Training has established this formula and I am going to suggest that this has duped – brainwashed – our teaching profession completely into teachers and officials thinking there should need to be such a BEHEMOTH offer. Indeed, I am going to state that if a systematic synthetic phonics programme’s body of work (its teaching and learning resources) is content-rich, well-thought-out, user-friendly – that this should not need an expensive, colossal, micro-managed training provision. Ruth Miskin herself boasts about her “600 videos” that her ‘portal’ provides. Goodness! How ludicrous! Years ago when Ruth personally boasted to me about the, then, “200 videos” she provided, I put it to her that a phonics programme cannot be good enough if it required such extensive back-up material. She clearly did not agree. Or, Ruth Miskin has no faith in the resources and rationale of her own programme, Read Write Inc, such that she feels she has to micro-manage and train personnel to an extraordinary, clone-like degree – ongoing forever. Or, she is just an amazing business women which she certainly has proved to be.
I hope that this might provide some food for thought, open up some eyes and generate some professional curiosity – and, indeed, some political and public curiosity. I have recognised the remarkable achievements of Nick Gibb, former Minister for School Standards, in investigating the teaching of early reading and enabling parliamentary and national inquiries and subsequently championing the need for ‘systematic synthetic phonics’ (SSP) in our schools. Sadly, despite some well-meaning government initiatives in England along the way, some of these have been misguided – and I suggest that the DfE could indeed ‘do differently and much better’.
More to follow from me in subsequent posts!
Meanwhile, here are the two titles of Warwick Mansell’s earlier posts featuring the DfE English Hubs and associated phonics programmes – do subscribe to his journalism:
‘Claims that major phonics programme, tied to resources sold by publishing giant, is “not-for-profit” prompt questions from rivals’
19 Jul 2024
‘Suggestion by Little Wandle that Ofsted requires schools to buy resources matched to phonics scheme appears to be contradicted by inspectorate’
25 Jul 2024
————-
Update: 26 Sept 2024
Journalist, Warwick Mansell has now published a further piece via his site entitled:
‘Individuals linked to companies which won contracts to support DfE’s English Hubs initiative continued to serve on its overarching council – despite government document warnings on potential conflicts of interest‘
Warwick’s piece begins:
‘Two people linked to companies which won contracts to support the Department for Education’s English Hubs initiative continued to serve on the council overseeing this policy – despite the government having suggested they could be removed in such circumstances.
Before the council started work in 2019, the Department for Education had warned that any member of the council “cannot continue to supply another service as part of the English Hubs programme, with the exception of services paid for by hub schools for the schools they are supporting”.
The stipulation was set out in a document setting out the rules for those expressing an interest in serving as “reading experts” on the council, which since 2019 has overseen the DfE’s English Hubs initiative to improve phonics and wider literacy in primary schools.
In a section addressing the possibility of conflicts of interest, the document “Expression of Interest for members of the English Hubs council,” dated 2018, stated:
“Candidates with an actual or potential conflict of interest should set this out clearly in their application and the DfE will maintain a register of these for successful candidates.
“If you are successful in your application for membership of the English Hubs Council, you cannot continue to supply another service as part of the English Hubs programme, with the exception of services paid for by hub schools for the schools they are supporting.
“Should you or your employer be successful in an application to supply the English Hubs Training Centre, your application for the English Hubs Council will be withdrawn.
“Candidates must manage actual or potential conflicts of interest on an on-going basis. For example, should a candidate or their employer subsequently supply (or express an interest in supplying) another service as part of the English Hubs programme, then the Department may remove such [a] candidate from the Council.”
What has happened
In 2019, Ruth Miskin Training, which runs the Read Write Inc phonics programme, won a £1.5 million contract to run the “English Hubs Training Centre”.
You can find the rest of this investigation via Warwick’s site.
