Debbie: I recommend reading the article (link above) by Holly Korbey if you have an interest in the current state of play of reading instruction of the English language internationally.
I also recommend a visit to the Blog and the ‘Forum’ of the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction for a reflective record of developments across the world with links, for example, to ‘Around the World: News and Events’, ‘Research and Recommended Reading‘ and ‘Education Blogs and Websites of Interest‘ and much more!
Many years ago, the Times Educational Supplement (TES) hosted a popular teachers’ message forum that was one of several places where I would make comments, offer suggestions, and generally raise awareness about the efficacy of good phonics provision and the potential damage of ‘multi-cueing word-guessing’ – known as the ‘Searchlights Reading Strategies in England’s context (guidance within the ‘National Literacy Strategy’ rolled out in England in 1998 when I was, at that time, a primary teacher). Additionally, I have written many articles for magazines featuring the reading debate and foundational literacy (including ‘handwriting’ and ‘phonics provision’). Some of my articles and commentaries continue to have ‘live links’ which you can see HERE.
Back in 2001, I took over editorship of the newsletter for the UK Reading Reform Foundation in a paper-based and online format to reach all schools in England to challenge the, then, ‘Searchlights Reading Strategies’ – see newsletters numbers 45 to 51 HERE. I was already writing many letters to regional literacy and local authority advisors, politicians, the Government’s Department for Education and Skills, Ofsted (England’s inspectorate) and even the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, regarding the flawed guidance in the official ‘National Literacy Strategy’.
In 2003, I was invited to attend the DfES Phonics Seminar which was held in light of persistent criticism of the guidance for reading instruction in the official ‘National Literacy Strategy’. It was extremely an extremely disappointing event. Following the seminar, we had to wait quite a while before Professor Greg Brooks published his summary of the event. I wrote a response to this summary with some rather damning criticism in RRF newsletter no. 51, ‘In denial – the NLS whitewash continues‘.
As a representative of the UK Reading Reform Foundation, I contributed directly to informing the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee inquiry ‘Teaching Children to Read’ (2004 – 05) which was instigated (largely thanks to former Minister for School Standards, Nick Gibb) to address many of the challenges to the ‘Searchlights Reading Strategies’ of the 1998 National Literacy Strategy.
In 2005, I also contributed to Sir Jim Rose’s review commissioned by the, then, Government as a further development to the reading debate, ‘Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading’ which was the first time I met Sir Jim in person (having sent informative emails to both Sir Jim and Nick Gibb over a considerable period of time). This was a truly important, world-renowned report from which I published some ‘extracts’ – some of which Sir Jim himself suggested that I ‘highlight‘. Some years later, Sir Jim was very kind and supportive – taking the time to observe in person my hard copy ‘No Nonsense Phonics‘ materials being trialled. He also emailed me with a link to this short video to say how excellent he thought it was to describe and demonstrate phonics. Sir Jim was a very wise, kind and supportive gentleman – and his contribution to the reading debate was profoundly important!
In 2015, I launched the UK Reading Reform Foundation conference ‘From the Rose Review to the New Curriculum. A growing number of schools successfully teach every child to read: the majority still don’t. Why?’ with my talk entitled, ‘Does it really matter if teachers do not share a common understanding about phonics and reading instruction?’ It does indeed matter when teachers do not share a common understanding about phonics and reading instruction, and you will see from Holly Korbey’s article, and other sources, this is still the case to this day.
With the successful campaigning of the UK Reading Reform Foundation over the years, I brought together some renowned advisors, researchers and practitioners to found the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction. I knew that if I could encourage Sir Jim Rose to join the founding committee, other international pioneers for research-informed reading instruction would be likely to join. ‘Bots’ have made it difficult to continue with the ‘Forum’ but there is still an extraordinary amount of information available to see via the Forum and the Blog.
And here is the irony and the tragedy, it is clear from Holly Korbey’s article that the decades-old ‘reading wars’ continue – and even if the ‘Science of Reading’ is accepted, the quality of phonics and foundational literacy provision is still not universal nor well understood – not even in teacher-training.
As a consequence of the House of Commons inquiry in England – and the independent review of Sir Jim Rose, arguably those in authority in the, then, Department for Education and Skills in England, made a mistake to publish ‘Letters and Sounds’ (DfES, 2007) and entitle it a ‘high-quality phonics programme’. You see, it was never a ‘programme’ although much of the content was founded on research and good practice at that time. Nevertheless, it was a flawed idea to present the publication as a ‘programme’. It had no teaching and learning resources, therefore it was ‘LEFT TO CHANCE’ how well teachers interpreted and equipped ‘Letters and Sounds’ when it was their chosen programme. By including an ‘order’ of introducing letter/s-sound correspondences (the alphabetic code), it undermined and took precedence over existing and subsequent ‘systematic synthetic phonics’ programmes because it was perceived as ‘official’ and, in some cases, ‘what Ofsted would want to see’ (Ofsted is England’s school inspectorate). A few of us persuaded, then, Minister for School Standards, Nick Gibb, to archive the original ‘Letters and Sounds‘ instead of equipping a ‘revised’ version with actual teaching and learning resources.
The original idea for the Government to publish a guidance document instead of a publication in the guise of a ‘phonics programme’ was mine. Although I state the advent of a new ‘reading framework’ is a great development, sadly it is not really a ‘framework’ as such – so not entirely practical for busy teachers. Nevertheless, this is a relatively successful outcome after many years of observing failed children as a consequence of flawed teaching, years of campaigning and pioneering for evidence-informed ‘systematic synthetic phonics’ teacher-training and provision for learners.
And, add to that, years of promoting what I consider to be an even better way forwards by changing the ‘perception’ of phonics from the domain of infant teaching to lifelong adult knowledge and skills, with ‘Two-pronged systematic AND incidental phonics teaching and learning‘ with the use of ‘ever-present, overview, Alphabetic Code Charts, and cumulative, CONTENT-RICH paper-based resources at code, word and text level (worksheets, pupil books) for each and every learner designed with ALL stakeholders in mind!
