Why teach synthetic phonics?

Background................................................................................................................................ 1 Somenewspaperheadlinesfromthisperiod ....................................................................... 3 Thedifferentkindsofphonicsexplained .............................................................................. 3 WhattheClackmannanshireresearch(2004,2005)showed ................................................... 4 Whatcriticsofsyntheticphonicshavesaid ........................................................................... 6 Theresearchersdidnotrandomlyassignchildrentothedifferentconditions.................... 6 Factorsotherthansyntheticphonicsmayhavecontributedtothepositiveresults ........... 6 Theresultsforcomprehensionwerepooryetreadingisallaboutcomprehension ......... 7 Asyntheticphonicsapproachdenieschildrenaccesstobooks............................................ 7 Thesyntheticapproachisdullandlikelytoturnchildrenoffreading.................................. 8 Onesizedoesntfitall? ......................................................................................................... 9 Thetideofopinionhasturned ............................................................................................. 10 RecentevidenceoftheimpactofsyntheticphonicsnotedbyOfsted ............................... 11 Currentgovernmentpolicy ................................................................................................. 13 Thingschampionsofsyntheticphonicssay ........................................................................ 14 Further/futureresearchmayhelptostrengthentheargumentforsyntheticphonics.......... 14 References............................................................................................................................... 16

Background
Withitscompellingandimpressivefindings,theClackmannanshireresearchintoasynthetic phonicsapproachwaspromotedstronglybythemediaafteritwaspublishedin20045. JohnstonandWatsonsfindingsimpressedministersandresultedinarecommendationby EnglandsEducationSelectCommitteethatthereshouldbeagovernmentalenquiryintothe teachingofreading.TheoutcomewastheRosereviewoftheteachingofearlyreading (2006). TheRosereviewstartedbystressingtheimportanceofincludingsystematicphonics instructioninearlyreadingprogrammesandconcludedthatthecaseforsystematicphonic workismuchstrengthenedbyasyntheticapproach(Rose,2006,p.20).TheNational LiteracyStrategywithitssearchlights1modelwassubsequentlydroppedasthegovernment feltthatitlefttoomanychildrenunabletoreadproperlyandreplacedbyfirstandfast syntheticphonicsastheprimemethodforteachingreadinginstateschools. Whilstresearchevidenceclearlysupportedsystematicphonicsteaching,whetherasynthetic approachwasthebestformofsystematicphonicswashotlyandpubliclydebatedinthe media.Thechangeinpolicy(fromsearchlightstosyntheticphonics)sparkedcriticismfrom somequarters,againwidelyreportedbythemedia.

Thesearchlightreadingstrategiesinvolvedchildreninusingsomephonics(e.g.initialsounds)and alsocontextbasedcuesandclues(e.g.lookingattheillustrations,decidingwhetherthesentence makessenseetc)fordecodingunknownwords.Thecombinationofstrategieswasnotsupportedby experimentalresearch.Rather,theywerepartofaneclecticapproachapragmaticcompromise betweentheviewsofdifferentlobbygroupse.g.realbookscampaigners.

1

CentrefortheUseofResearchandEvidenceInEducation

12

Somenewspaperheadlinesfromthisperiod
WhenCATspellswar TES,6May2005 www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2097426 Issyntheticphonicsreallytheholygrailofreading? TES,13May2005 www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2099704 Thephussaboutfonix NurseryWorld,16June2005 www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/718350/phussfonix/ Teachers'angeratKellyuturnoverphonics Guardian,9December2005 www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/02/politics.schools TeachersjoinincriticismofKellyreadingplan Guardian,2February2006 www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/feb/02/schools.uk Syntheticphonics:Soundandfury NurseryWorld,14June2007 www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/730361/SpecialreportSyntheticphonicsSoundfury/

Thedifferentkindsofphonicsexplained
SystematicphonicsisdefinedbyTorgersonetal.(2006)asteachinglettersound relationshipsinanexplicit,organisedandsequencedfashion,asopposedtoincidentallyor onawhenneededbasis.Buttherearetwomaintypesofsystematicphonicswhichare quitedifferenttooneanother:analyticandsyntheticphonics. Withanalyticphonics,lettersoundsaretaughtafterreadinghasbegun.Thechildrenfirst learntoreadbysight(taughtusingalookandsayapproach),buttheyalsohavephonic lessonswhentheylearnlettersoundsinasequence(i.e.ininitial,finalthenthemiddle position),followedbyblends,e.g.bl,cr,standdigraphs,e.g.eaasinbread.Readingis taughtbeforespelling.Thefullphonicsschemeusuallytakesthreeyearstocomplete.This wastheformofphonicspromotedbytheNationalLiteracyStrategy. Syntheticphonicsisaveryacceleratedformofphonicschildrenaretaughtallletter sounds,includingblendsanddigraphsinthefirstfewmonthsofschool(just16weeksinthe Clackmannanshireresearch).Lettersoundsaretaughtbeforechildrenareintroducedto books.Childrenareshownlettersinallpositionsfromthestartandaretaughttoreadand spellsimultaneously.Syntheticinthecontextofphonicsdoesntmeanartificial.Itsabout synthesisputtingtogethersmallelementstomakealargerwhole.

CentrefortheUseofResearchandEvidenceInEducation

12

What the Clackmannanshire research (2004, 2005) showed

Briefly,13classesofchildrenaged5(around300children)fromeightschoolsin Clackmannanshiretookpartintheresearch.Thechildrensclassteachersweretrainedto deliveroneofthreeprogrammes: analyticphonics(4classes) analyticphonicssupplementedbyphonemeawareness(4classes) syntheticphonics(5classes)

Thechildrensreadingskillsweretestedbeforetheteachingprogrammestartedusing standardtests. Theinterventiontookplaceover16weeks.Theteacherstaughteachscriptedphonics programmefor20minutesaday.Followingtheintervention,theresearchersassessedand comparedthepupilsreadingskillsagain.Afterthat,forethicalreasons,thechildreninthe analyticgroupsthenfollowedthesyntheticphonicsprogrammetoo,completingitbythe endoftheirfirstyearatschool.Theresearchersthenfollowedallthechildrensprogress fromYear2toYear6. Attheendofthe16weekexperimentalperiod,thechildreninthesyntheticphonicsgroup were: 7monthsaheadoftheanalyticgroupsinreadingand7monthsaheadoftheir chronologicalage.Theycouldalsoreadimaginaryandunfamiliarwordsbetter 89monthsaheadinspellingoftheother2groupsand7monthsaheadoftheirage.

Bytheirlastyearatschool,thechildrens: wordreadingwas3years6monthsaheadoftheirchronologicalage spellingwas1year9monthsaheadoftheirchronologicalage readingcomprehensionwas3.5monthsaheadoftheirchronologicalage

(Remember,allthechildrenhadbeentaughtusingthesyntheticphonicsmethodafterthe initial16weekexperimentalperiod). Oftenboysperformancelagsbehindthatofgirlsinliteracy,butinthisstudy,bytheirlast yearinschool,theboyswereperformingsignificantlybetterthanthegirlsinreadingwords, andspeltbetterthanthegirls,butboysandgirlsdidnotdiffersignificantlyinreading comprehension. Consciousthatthesyntheticgroupmayhavebeenatanadvantageinthetestsattheendof the16weekexperimentalperiod,duetothefactthatthesyntheticgroupwereinevitably taughtphonicsatafasterpacethantheanalyticgroup,theresearcherscarriedoutanother experimentthatcontrolledforthis.Thisadditionalstudyinvolved92fiveyearoldchildren fromfourclassesdrawnfromtwoschoolswhowereassignedtooneofthreeconditions:the nolettertraininggroup,theacceleratedlettertraininggroup,andthesyntheticphonics (acceleratedlearningandblending)group.

CentrefortheUseofResearchandEvidenceInEducation

12

Thechildrenwereextractedfromclassandprovidedwithextratuitionbyoneofthe researcherstwiceaweekfor15minutesovertenweeks(19sessionsaltogether).Theywere alltaughtthesamenumberofwords,butindifferentwaysaccordingtowhichgroupthey werein. Attheendoftheexperimentalperiod,thesyntheticgroupchildrenreadmorewordsand letterscorrectlythanthechildrenintheothertwogroupsandtheystillperformedbetter tenweeksandninemonthslater.Therewasnodifferencebetweentheothertwogroups.It seemedthattheywereabletosoundandblendunfamiliarwordswhenreadingtext, continuingwiththetechniquelongafterthebriefintervention(just4.75hours)hadended.

What critics of synthetic phonics have said

Someofthecriticisms(voicedvianewspaperandacademicjournalarticles)focuson perceivedweaknessesinJohnstonandWatsonsresearch;othersrelatetodisagreements withparticularelementsoftheapproach.

Theresearchersdidnotrandomlyassignchildrentothedifferent conditions
Arandomisedcontroltrialisoftenregardedasthemostrobustmethodofassessing whetheraninterventioniseffective.Ithappenswheretwoormoregroupsofchildrenare formedrandomlyandeachgroupreceivesadifferentformofinstruction.Ifonegroup makessignificantlybetterprogressitcanbeinferredthattheformofteachingtheyreceived wasmoreeffective,becauseotherfactors,whichmightinfluencetheoutcomehavebeen controlledfor(withtheexceptionofchance).

IndefenceItwasnotpossible/practicalfortheresearcherstorandomlyallocatethe
childrentodifferentconditions,sowhattheydidwasallocatetheschoolsfromthemost disadvantagedareasintheClackmannanshirestudytothesyntheticphonicscondition.The researchersfeltthiswasatoughtestoftheeffectivenessofsyntheticphonics,aschildren fromareasofdeprivationusuallydolesswellinreadingthanthosefrombetteroffareas fromtheveryfirstyearatschool(Stuartetal,1998;Duncan&Seymour,2000). Itseemsunlikelythatrandomassignmentwouldhaveledtodifferentoutcomesanyway. ReviewsbytheNationalReadingPanel(2000)andCamillietal.(2003)lookedspecificallyat whetherstudieshavingrandomassignmenttoconditionsledtodifferentoutcomesfrom thosestudiesthatdidnot(themajorityoftheliterature).Neitherreviewfoundthathaving randomassignmentmadeanydifferencetotheoutcome.

Factorsotherthansyntheticphonicsmayhavecontributedtothe positiveresults
IthasbeenclaimedthatotherinterventionswerebeingcarriedoutinClackmannanshireat thetimeofthestudy,whichcouldhaveledtobetterresultsforthesyntheticphonics condition.

CentrefortheUseofResearchandEvidenceInEducation

12

IndefenceAtthetimeofthestudy,homeschoolliaisonofficerswereappointedin
fourofthestudyschools.However,twoofthesewereinschoolsinthesyntheticphonics condition,andtwowereinananalyticphonicscondition,sotheseappointmentscannot accountforthegainsfoundwiththesyntheticphonicsprogramme.

Theresultsforcomprehensionwerepooryetreadingisallabout comprehension
Whilstthewordreadingtestsshowedthatthechildrentrainedinsyntheticphonicshada readingage3yearsand6monthsaheadoftheirchronologicalage,thereading comprehensiontestshowedagainofonly3.5monthsoverchronologicalage.Criticswere quicktopointoutthatreadingisaboutreadingcomprehensionandnotbarkingoutwords andarguedthereforethatthebenefitofsyntheticphonicswasamere3.5monthsrather thanthe3years6monthsthatisoftenquoted.Some,suchasTerryWrigley,asenior lecturerineducationatEdinburghUniversitywentfurtherandalsocriticisedthetests themselvesasthereadingtestsonlyinvolvedreadingsinglewordsinisolation,heargued thatitisnotsurprisingifthosewhohavebeentaughtthiswaydobestinthiskindoftest.

IndefenceWhilemuchismadeofthefactthatthesyntheticphonicsprogrammein
Clackmannanshireledtogreaterincreasesinwordreadingthaninreadingcomprehension, implyingthatreadingcomprehensiondidnotbenefitfromtheintervention,itshouldbe notedthatattheendoftheseventhyearatschool,readingcomprehensioninthestudywas significantlyaboveagelevel,inasamplethathadabelowaverageSES(socioeconomic status)profile.Withthatbackground,theirresultsareperhapsbetterthantheyseem.It shouldalsoperhapsberememberedthatfollowingthe16weeksyntheticphonics intervention,thechildrenhadsixfurtheryearsofteachingwhentheircomprehensionskills couldhavebeendevelopedsyntheticphonicsgavethechildrentheskillstoreadthe words.

Asyntheticphonicsapproachdenieschildrenaccesstobooks
Somecriticsoftheapproachhaveexpressedconcernaboutchildrenbeingdeniedbooksasa resultofteachersteachingsyntheticphonics.DominicWyseofCambridgeUniversityfor examplehasargued2:Oneofthemostquestionablerequirementsofpopularsynthetic phonicsprogrammesisthatchildrendonotreadbooksforthefirsttwoorthreemonths whiletheyarelearningtheirphonemes.Hearguedthatnearlyallreadingresearchers agreethatreadingarangeoftextsisvitaltoconsolidatereadingskillsandthatreadinga rangeoftextsisalsoessentialtostimulatemotivationforreading.

IndefenceThechildreninJohnstonsandWatsonsresearchreadtextfromearlyon.
Theystartedondecodablereadingschemebooksjustsixweeksaftertheprogramme started.Rose(2006,p.37)pointsoutthatthecriticalskillsofwordrecognitionmustfirstbe securedbybeginnerreaders.Thatisnottosaybeginnerreadersshouldbedeniedaccess,
TESarticle13/5/05Issyntheticphonicsreallytheholygrailofreading? www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2099704
2

CentrefortheUseofResearchandEvidenceInEducation

12

withskilledreaders,toliteratureandsharingbooks.Indeed,itisimportanttomakesure that,overthecourseofacquiringphonicskills,childrenarealsogiveneveryopportunityto enjoyandbenefitfromexcellentliterature. Rose(2006,p.27)alsosaysthereissomeforceintheviewthat,astheylearntomasterthe alphabeticcode,childrenshouldbegivenreadingmaterialthatiswellwithintheirreachin theformof'decodablebooks';thatistosay,earlyreadingbooksspeciallydesignedto incorporateregulartext,whichchildrencandecodeusingthephonicskillstheyhave secured.Theviewisthatthisenablesthemtobenefitfrom'quickwins'inpractisingphonic skillsandgainingconfidencefromreadingawhole,albeitshort,book.Muchturnsonthe qualityofthedecodablebookswhichareavailable.

Thesyntheticapproachisdullandlikelytoturnchildrenoffreading
Criticsarguethatsyntheticphonicsisaboringandoverlyroboticprocess;thatfocusingon thealphabeticcodealonewillnotgripchildrensyntheticphonicswillbetediousforvery manychildren,exceptinthemostskilledandenthusiastichands.

IndefenceWhilesyntheticphonicsencouragesbeginningreaderstoconcentrateon
decodingthetextandnotbedistractedbysearchingforcuesandclues(aswiththe searchlightsapproach)thisdoesnotmeanthatthematerialsshouldbecontentlessand boring. Championsofsyntheticphonicsarguethatequippingchildrenwiththesoundstogetherwith thetoolsofblendingcanmakeforaveryexcitingdiscoveryexperience.This,inturn,relates tocriticismsthatlearningearlysystematicphonicsisroboticChampionsarguethe contrary,thatimpartingthisselfteachingmethodappearstobeveryempoweringfor childrenbecauseitultimatelyallowsthemtodecodewordswithoutadulthelp. TheOfsted3(2010)reportReadingbysixnotedthatchildrenwereenthusiasticabout learningtoreadwhensyntheticphonicswaswelltaught.Forexample,theinspectors observed56yearoldsatoneschoolreadingthenamesoftheplacesonamapofthe imaginarykingdomofNarnia(TheLamppost,TheShudderingWood,FrozenLake)that wasoutsidetheheadteachersofficesoundingouteachletter,thenblendingthesounds togethertoreadtheunknownwordsentirelyindependentlyandwithoutpromptingfrom adults.

Onesizedoesntfitall?
Teachingunionshavequestionedgovernmentrelianceononemethodwhichwillnot necessarilysuitallchildrenbecausechildrenlearnindifferentways4.

TheOfficeforStandardsinEducation,ChildrensServicesandSkills(Ofsted)istheofficialbodyfor inspectingschools 4 See,forexample,theEarlyYearsCurriculumGroupviewreportedintheGuardian,20/3/06Schools tousesyntheticphonicstoteachreadingwww.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/mar/20/schools.uk1)

3

CentrefortheUseofResearchandEvidenceInEducation

12

IndefenceTheRosereview(2006)arguesthatallbeginnerreadershavetocometo
termswiththesamealphabeticprinciplesiftheyaretolearntoreadandwrite.Inthedaily workofsettingsandclassroomsthismeansfindingthelineofbestfitforthegreatmajority ofchildren,underpinnedwithadditionallearningsupportforthosewhoneedit.Moreover, leadingedgepracticebearsnoresemblancetoa'onesizefitsall'modelofteachingand learning. Beingwaryofanew/differentapproachisunderstandable,butonceteachersseethe differenceanapproachmakesforthemselves,theybecomeconvertedtoit TheRosereview(p.63)reportedhowatthebeginningoftheClackmannanshireprogramme someteachershadreservations:theythoughtatfirstitwastooquickand[they]worried aboutthose[pupils]thatcouldnotcope.However,havingseentheimpactonchildrens learning,theteacherswerewhollycommittedtotheapproach.Oneteachersaid,'Ihave neverseenresultslikethisin30yearsofteaching'.Shewentontosaythat,asaresultof followingtheprogramme,'IamseeingPrimary3qualityinPrimary1.Inotherwords,the teacherconsideredthatthechildrenshewasteachinginPrimary1wereworkingatthelevel ofchildrentwoyearsolder.

The tide of opinion has turned

Evidencebyrecentarticlesinthepressshowshowsyntheticphonicsratherthanthe searchlightsmodelisbeginningtobeseenasthewayforwards,forexample: Soundreadingmethod (Referstosyntheticphonics) TES,21December2007 www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2559486 Childledapproachtolearningtoreadisblamedforilliteracy (HighlightshowtheLiteracyStrategyssearchlightsmodelhasntworkedformanychildren) NurseryWorld,28July2010 www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/1018686/Childledapproachlearningreadblamed illiteracy/ UseofphonicswonOfstedspraise TES4,February2011 www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6069289

RecentevidenceoftheimpactofsyntheticphonicsnotedbyOfsted5
Ofsteds(2010)reportonhowthebestschoolsteachreadingstronglypromotedadherence tosyntheticphonicsinprimaryschools,findingthat"thediligent,concentratedand systematicteachingofphonicsiscentraltothesuccessofalltheschoolsthatachievehigh readingstandardsinKeyStage1". Itdrewonthepracticeof12outstandingschoolsacrossEnglandtoilluminatewhatworks. Theschoolsrepresentedadiverserangeofcommunitiesandusedsyntheticphonics
TheOfficeforStandardsinEducation,ChildrensServicesandSkills(Ofsted)istheofficialbodyfor inspectingschools
5

CentrefortheUseofResearchandEvidenceInEducation

12

programmes,buttheyhadstrikingfeaturesincommon."Theyarepassionateintheirbelief that...rigorous,intensiveandsystematicphonicsteachingunderpinsreading,spellingand writing". ExamplesofthedifferencemadebyasyntheticphonicsteachingapproachgivenbyOfsted aregivenbelow. BlueCoatCofEInfantSchoolandNursery,Walsall Vitalstatistics:293onroll,70inYear2,21.6%FreeSchoolMeals (comparedwithanationalaverageof17%). PercentageofYear2pupilsreachingLevel2Candaboveforreadingand writinginKeyStage1atin2009comparedwiththenationalaverage

OldFordPrimarySchool,TowerHamlets Vitalstatistics:726onroll,90inYear2,62.1%FreeSchoolMeals (comparedwithanationalaverageof17%). PercentageofYear2pupilsreachingLevel2Candaboveforreadingand writinginKeyStage1at2009comparedwiththenationalaverage

CentrefortheUseofResearchandEvidenceInEducation

12

 Ofsted(2010)alsoemphasisedtheimportanceofschoolsmakingstafftraininginsynthetic phonicsavailableandmonitoringteachersimplementationoftheapproach.Italso emphasisedthecarefulmonitoringofprogressbypupils.

Currentgovernmentpolicy
InitsWhitePaperTheImportanceofTeaching(DfE,2010),thenewgovernmentrecognised thevalueandimportanceofsyntheticphonicsanddeclareditscommitmenttosupporting schoolsinprovidingtheteachingofsyntheticphonics: Theevidenceisclearthattheteachingofsystematicsyntheticphonicsisthemost effectivewayofteachingyoungchildrentoread,particularlythoseatriskofhaving problemswithreading...Wewillprovidetheresourcestosupporttheteachingof systematicsyntheticphonicsinprimaryschools.(para4.16,p.43) Amatchedfundingscheme,designedtosupporttheteachingofsyntheticphonicsacrossthe country,wasannouncedbySchoolsMinisterNickGibbinApril2011(DfE,2011).The schemeenabledprimaryschoolstoclaimupto3,000tospendonphonicsmaterials, providedthattheymatchedthegovernmentfunding. Thegovernmentexpectstheschoolstomaketheirownjudgementinselectingthematerials forteachingsyntheticphonics.Thelistofpublishersandtheirprogrammeswhichmeetthe DfEsrevisedcorecriteriaforaneffectivephonicsprogrammeincludesPearsonsPhonics Bugandisavailableat: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/pedagogy/teachingstyles/phoni cs/a0010235/publishers

Thingschampionsofsyntheticphonicssay6
Manyteachersofchildrenindeprivedareaswouldgivetheirrightarmtobeabletoget theirkidsthreemonthsaheadofnationalnormsforcomprehension!

6 Takenfromwww.syntheticphonics.com/articles.htmlSoundSense CentrefortheUseofResearchandEvidenceInEducation 12

Thereisnothingformalaboutsyntheticphonicsteaching.Itismultisensoryandfunand canbeachievedin30minutesaday,leavingseveralhourstobefilledbychildinitiatedplay, sand,water,painting,outdoorplayetc. Withsyntheticphonicschildrendonothavetomemoriseorguessastheydowiththe mixedmethodssearchlightsmodel. Ifyouevervisitaschoolwhereasyntheticphonicsprogrammeisbeingused systematically,ledbytheheadteacherwiththewholeschoolbehinditandobservea teachersclasswhereeverychildissucceedingwithlearningtoread,andenjoyingdoingso, youllfindthereisnogoingback... Our[alphabetic]codeneedstobeintroducedcarefully[earlyandquickly]byteachers whounderstanditthemselves.[Ifweleaveittoolong]ourchildrenwillalreadyhave developedlookandstarestrategies,alongwithguessing,andbewellonthewaytomaking adogsdinnerofunderstandingthecode. Itsnottrendy,notcrueltytoyoungchildren,notformal,notrightwing,anditsnotdifficult toteach.

Further/future research may help to strengthen the argument for synthetic phonics
Torgersonetal.forexample,calledfor: alargeUKbasedrandomisedcontrolledtrialtofurtherinvestigatewhichisbest: analyticorsyntheticphonics researchthatinvestigateswhetherphonicsteachingboostscomprehension,and researchthatinvestigateswhetherphonicsteachingshouldbeusedtoteach spelling.

TheSelectCommitteeonEducationandSkillseighthreport(2007)7suggestedthe commissioningofastudytoestablish:

therelativeeffectivenessofsyntheticandanalyticphonics theeffectofmixingphonicsinstructionwithothermethodsofteaching,compared to'phonicsfast,firstandonly' howlonganygainsaffordedbyaparticularprogrammearesustained theeffectofteachingtextswhichgobeyondachild'sexistingknowledgeofphonics comparedtothatoflimitinginstructionaltextstothosewithinachild'scurrent decodingabilities theeffectivenessofdifferentapproacheswithparticulargroupsofchildren, includingboys/girls,thosewithspecialeducationalneedsandthosewithahighlevel ofsocioeconomicdisadvantage.

Theselectcommitteeadvisedthatthestudyshould:

measureandcompareattainmentbymeansofstandardisedtestingandnotKey Stagetestresults

See:www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeduski/121/12106.htm

CentrefortheUseofResearchandEvidenceInEducation

12

measureattainmentinallthecomponentsofliteracy(wordrecognition,reading comprehension,narrativeawareness,etc) usecontrolgroupstotakeaccountoffactorswhichmayhaveabearingonreading outcomes,suchasteacherknowledgeandability,socioeconomicbackgroundand gender.

CentrefortheUseofResearchandEvidenceInEducation

12

References
Camilli,G,Vargas,S.&Yurecko,M.(2003)Teachingchildrentoread:thefragilelink betweenscienceandfederaleducationpolicy,EducationPolicyAnalysisArchives,11,No15. DepartmentforEducation(DfE)(2010)TheImportanceofTeachingTheschoolsWhite Paper2010.Availableat: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/CM7980.pdf DepartmentforEducation(DfE)(2011)Fundingforphonicsteachingtoimprovechildrens reading.Pressnoticefrom6April2011.Availableat: http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a0076456/fundingforphonics teachingtoimprovechildrensreading Duncan, L.G. & Seymour P.H.K. (2000) Socioeconomic differences in foundationlevel literacy.BritishJournalofPsychology,91,145166. Johnston,R.S.&Watson,J.E.(2004)Acceleratingthedevelopmentofreading,spelling,and phonemicawarenessskillsininitialreaders.Readingandwriting,17,pp.327357 Johnston,R.&Watson,J.(2005).Theeffectsofsyntheticphonicsteachingofreadingand spellingattainment:Asevenyearlongitudinalstudy: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/36496/0023582.pdfRetrieved25/8/11 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National ReadingPanel.Bethesda,MD:NationalInstituteofChildHealthandHumanDevelopment. Ofsted(2010)Readingbysix:Howthebestschoolsdoit.www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted home/Publicationsandresearch/Browseallby/Documentsbytype/Thematic reports/ReadingbysixhowthebestschoolsdoitRetrieved25/8/11 Rose,J.(2006)Independentreviewoftheteachingofearlyreading.FinalReport.London: DfES.www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationdetail/page1/DFES0201 2006Retrieved25/8/11 Stuart,M,DixonM,MastersonJ,andQuinlan,P.(1998)Learningtoreadathomeandat school.BritishJournalEducationalPsychology,68,pp.314. Torgerson,C.J.,Hall,J.,&Brooks,G.(2006)ASystematicReviewoftheResearchLiterature ontheUseofPhonicsintheTeachingofReadingandSpelling.(DCSFRR711)2006 www.education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/Developingreadingwritingandnumericalskills/Page 1/RR711Retrieved25/8/11 Wrigley,T.(2006)Anotherschoolispossible.TrenthamBooks Wyse,D&Style,M.(2007)Syntheticphonicsandtheteachingofreading:thedebate surroundingEnglandsRoseReport.Literacy41(1)pp.3542PublishedbyUnitedKingdom LiteracyAssociation(UKLA): www.ncne.co.uk/phdi/p1.nsf/pages/ncne:RoseEnquiryPhonicsPaperUKLA.pdf/$file/RoseEnq uiryPhonicsPaperUKLA.pdfRetrieved25/8/11

CentrefortheUseofResearchandEvidenceInEducation

12