********************************************************

You are entering fascinating territory as these are very exciting times regarding the debate on how best to teach beginning reading in English-speaking countries. English is taught in many countries as an additional language and so people across the world are following this debate with great interest.

Tragically, a look into the history of teaching reading in the English language reveals dramatic changes of mainstream teaching methods based on various fads, philosophies and myths - often led by charismatic characters with apparently plausible ideas (e.g. whole word 'Look and Say', whole language, real books, analytic phonics, balanced literacy, mixed methods) - all approaches with no scientific research base.

These various teaching methods are now accepted by the United Kingdom, American and Australian governments as being flawed. The need for the evidence-based synthetic phonics teaching principles to teach the alphabetic code has, at last, been officially recognised at government level in these countries. It seems unbelievable, therefore, that there continues to be relentless intransigence, subversion and misunderstanding amongst leading educational groups regarding the need for synthetic phonics basic skills instruction.

Furthermore, well-known early intervention programmes, such as Reading Recovery and Catch Up, continue to maintain an entrenched and influential hold over teacher-training establishments and many local education authorities. Reading Recovery in particular has been promoted and supported with public money by some branches of the British government and yet its underlying multi-cueing teaching principles are the very principles which the Rose Report makes clear are no longer acceptable practice for beginning teaching or remediating reading difficulties!

The Synthetic Phonics Teaching Principles:

Synthetic Phonics - no initial sight vocabulary where words are learnt as whole shapes; emphasis on letter sounds (not names - learn names in the first instance through, for example, an alphabet song); systematic, fast-paced, comprehensive introduction to letter/s-sound correspondence knowledge (e.g. four to six correspondences per week including vowels and consonants); putting the correspondence knowledge to immediate use with all-through-the-word blending for reading and segmenting single-sound units all-through-the-spoken-word for spelling; no guessing words from whole shape, picture, context or initial letter cues. This teaching approach is set within a literacy-rich environment and includes a full range of further exciting, age-appropriate language and literacy activities and creative opportunities.

Serious issues which need to be flagged up at this stage in the reading debate:

1) Faulty reading instruction methods can cause, or exacerbate, dyslexic tendencies - putting untold numbers of children on the path of failure before they have barely set out on their life's journey. Has the UK government applied its own suggested criteria for evaluating reading instruction programmes to its own programmes including its early intervention projects? And if so, why has the government chosen to support Reading Recovery with its flawed multi-cueing approach (which is also extremely expensive in terms of manpower and training costs) rather than investigating and supporting the impressive work being accomplished with existing synthetic phonics and linguistic phonics programmes? Is this acceptable?

2) Some local authorities continue to promote very coercively the Oxford Brookes University intervention programme Catch Up.  This programme is worryingly in 4,000 British schools. A detailed evaluation of this programme reveals its methods pre-date even the original National Literacy Strategy reading instruction guidance! Schools and parents need to be vigilant about the use of this programme and approach local authorities regarding the efficacy of using this programme for struggling readers. We need mechanisms to hold local authorities to account for promoting programmes such as this.

3) The degree of subversion and dissent regarding the UK Rose Report amongst establishment groups including the unions and the United Kingdom Literacy Association (UKLA), and amongst some national and local authority advisers is astonishing and dismaying. The government has focused on training for reception and year one teachers only. And yet, because of years of mis-training teachers with flawed teaching methods, difficulties with reading and spelling are currently evident amongst all age-groups, including adults. Everyone, including all teachers and members of the public, is entitled to know about the English alphabetic code and the skills of blending and segmenting all-through-the-word. The government’s current vision and action plan is simply far too small.

4) There are already signs of commercial programmes claiming to be ‘Synthetic Phonics’ whereas close scrutiny reveals that this is far from the case. Local authority advisers, pre-schools, schools and parents need to become knowledgeable in their own right to enable them to evaluate programmes independently.

5) Parents themselves need to be vigilant as to the prevailing teaching methods in their children’s schools - whether for beginning or remedial instruction - and they need to question schools and local authorities if they have any doubts about provision. It may well be parental awareness and pressure that ultimately makes the difference in teaching practices in the schools. Consider approaching your local members of parliament regarding this issue.

Quite simply, if you are a parent, to which type of school would YOU most confidently send YOUR children?


Debbie Hepplewhite
March 2007

Sign up for our FREE eBulletin/Newsletter