I am in the process of looking at the Early Literacy Support manual again as part of finalising the next newsletter.

The RRF has called for the withdrawal of this entire National Literacy Strategy early intervention programme. It is designed to be delivered by teaching assistants to identified children in the second term of their first year.

The programme is absolutely appalling. To anyone who knows about synthetic phonics teaching it is absolutely flawed from beginning to end.

I am feeling compelled to write about it again and to press harder for its withdrawal. Whoever wrote this programme arguably knows nothing about the early teaching of reading and writing and it is certainly and absolutely not commensurate with the research on reading. We cannot tell who is the author as we are given no information about the authorship.

It is worthy of a full enquiry and it typifies the methods of learning to read which the 'searchlights reading model' promotes directly and indirectly.

To date, the RRF has had no direct response, nor indeed any response, to it's call for the withdrawal of this programme.

In theory, Year 1 teachers and teaching assistants up and down the land have been trained to deliver this horrendously flawed programme and no-one is pointing that out except the RRF (to my knowledge).

Compare some of the snippets I shall now write with Greg Brooks' own observations and QCA statements that research has shown that context is used as a cue for word guessing in weak and struggling readers:

Whilst the instructions for letter/s-sound correspondences are only at the level of "To hear and say s, m, t in initial position" [p.2], the objectives also include "To read on sight the 45 high frequency words to be taught by the end of YR from Appendix list 1]. Further "To check on sight the works from texts of appropriate difficulty". Also "To expect written text to make sense and to check for sense if it does not."

Under text reading it says "To use a variety of cues when reading: knowledge of the story and its context, and awareness of how it should make sense grammatically." (Ring any bells with the searchlights model?)

Now, whilst the emphasis on 'phoneme-grapheme' correspondences is only on the s, m and t, the writing instructions for the children include "involve the children from the group in recognising words in texts, and in 'having a go' at writing.

There is no blending or segmenting all-through-the-word and yet there are pages of using the initial letter to check a word or guess a word, or to sort out word order in sentences from looking at the initial letters of the words NOTHING WHATSOEVER IS MENTIONED OF DECODING THE WORDS BY BLENDING OR WRITING BY SEGMENTING UNTIL WEEK 5 WHICH IS VIRTUALLY HALF WAY THROUGH YEAR ONE. Page after page is about recognising whole words from repetition, memory and initial letter, and from context, knowledge of the story and from what would make grammatical sense.

Page 10 "To use a variety of cues when reading: knowledge of the story and its context, and awareness of how it should make sense grammatically."

Horror of horrors - page 12 "draw attention to these words when doing Shared and Guided Reading or Writing: I, went, to, the. The children have been learning them as quick-fire words to build up their sight vocabulary."

Page 15 "Use letter-sound correspondences to help adult spell the words. What comes next? Say the sentence again. I WENT to the park. 'Went' is a new word, so I must make sure I leave a space. Can you hear the phoneme at the beginning of 'went'. Let's say it together. Emphasise the initial phoneme. You were good at helping Pip hear the initial phonemes earlier, can you do it for 'went'?

Please bear in mind that this is nearly half way through year 1. How many settings are there where programmes such as Jolly Phonics have been used which teaches the children in, for example, the first reception term to know all their letter/s-sound correspondences (plus digraphs) in that first term and which promote sounding out and blending all-through-the-word from the very first week. Also segmenting the sounds all-through-the-word for spelling. Children with this start can decode and encode hundreds of words through knowing their letter/s-sound correspondences and applying the skills of blending and segmenting.

Compare that with this programme that then goes on to describe learning how to spell such a simple phonically regular word as 'went' through the look, cover, write, check method. It is horrifying and there is no comparison.

Page 18. Start by learning 'went' using Look, Cover, Write, Check. The children practise writing the word three times on their whiteboards."

Page 21. "To use a variety of cues when reading: knowledge of the story and its context, and awareness of how it should make sense grammatically. To re-read a text to provide context cues to help read unfamiliar words".

Page 23. "Work out an unfamiliar word based on the pictures and the context of the sentence. Re-read sentence with suggested word: Does it sound right in this sentence?. Cross-check suggested word by looking at intitial letter: Does the word that you suggested start with this letter?"

Page 24. "Talk about how particular words are recognised, e.g. 'bed' (using the picture, the initial sound, remembering the word from the previous page)."

You can tell, no doubt, that I am feeling quite upset revisiting this programme. Anyone who follows the reading debate will understand just how much this is a whole language, look and say approach to teaching reading without a semblance of knowledge and understanding about good phonics teaching.

Anyone who is using synthetic phonics programmes in reception will know just how ludicrous it is to be promoting all the guesswork (call it predicting, suggesting, checking or what you will) to get children off to a good start.

Anyone who understands anything about the research such as the Clackmannanshire research or research which flags up warning after warning about the folly of Look and Say, Guessing, text down, will understand just how flawed this programme is.

So, who is going to call for its official withdrawal and an enquiry into who wrote it and whether it is still going to be officially endorsed considering Greg Brooks' own paper which highlights the inadvisability of context being used to guess words?

Has Greg even studied this programme I wonder despite our call for its withdrawal?

Would he endorse this programme in 2004? I think he needs asking.

Page 29. Whilst at last the instructions include "Segment words and identify phonemes to help with spelling" on the very same page it says "Talk about each word as they write. Help them to remember 'This' and 'is' by Look, Cover, Write, Check."

Followed by "Show the children a word on a card. Ask them to read it out loud, then try to remember it. Then they either write it in the air with their finger, or trace it, on someone's back, to practise the movements. Next they have a go at writing it quickly on their whiteboards and checking spelling by looking back at the original card. Practise 'this', 'is', 'a', 'big' in this way."

I HOPE EVERYONE IS SUITABLY HORRIFIED AT THIS DESCRIPTION OF SPELLING THE ABOVE WORDS!

On page 32 we get the first mention of CVC words but not about sounding out and blending all-through-the-word. Instead there is emphasis on rhyming and onset and rime. Now these aspects of learning to read have been criticised by many and replaced by the understanding that sounding out and blending all-through-the-word is the most effective phonic way to approach word decoding. Clearly, the author/s of ELS are way behind the times in every sense of the word. Pity the DfES will not acknowledge this because this programme will continue to be a total embarrassment to them until such time as they look at it again and compare it to the reading research, and listen to many experienced in the early teaching of reading and writing.

Whilst the children are expected to read 'fluently' and not in a stilted fashion, whilst they are expected to be able to get a grasp of grammar, context, story knowledge, read and spell through a whole word approach, read and write sentences and text, have an understanding of rhyme and onset and rime, they are still NOT EXPECTED TO BE SOUNDING OUT AND BLENDING ALL-THROUGH-THE-WORD FOR READING, OR SEGMENTING ALL-THROUGH-THE-WORD FOR SPELLING.

End of week four, page 41. "In Guided Reading, check the first letter of a word, check the first letter of the word and the picture when stuck."

AT LAST - WEEK 5: "To hear and say phonemes a, e, i, o, u in medial position. To segment to spell CVC words. To blend to read CVC words.

"Text reading: To use phonological, contextual, grammatical and graphic knowledge to work out, predict and check the meanings of unfamiliar words and to make sense of what they read."

My 'evening sickness' has well and truly set in and so I am feeling a bit too nauseous to be eloquent any more (reading this didn't help...) - it really is a load of pants, isn't it?!

So many schools dutifully follow the ELS programme as it must be beneficial as recommended by the Government. Why does no-one question the methods taught so far to warrant ELS being a 'necessity' in the first place? Will more of the same make it better? I think not.

My school does it. Hopefully this will be the first year we maybe have some withdrawals but following the principles I have introduced otherwise I really fear for my struggling few. Struggling, I hasten to add, just because of their lack of confidence, immaturity, SEN concerns or slower learning pace, not because the teaching principles dont work! All can recognise over 30 letter/sound correspondences and can blend up to 5 sounds so are way ahead of ELS anyway. They could just do with some daily reinforcement at their own level in a non-distracting environment.

It is outrageous is it not that there is no one accountable for this nonsense?
Teachers are accountable but government functionaries are not.

Many thanks Debbie, on behalf of all the members and concerned visitors for your hard work (overtime) on this critique and all the other editorial work you somehow manage to pull in.
It is impossible to get an official reasoned response to such criticisms of literacy teaching policy, in a situation of the monopoly of the mindless at the professorial level of pedagogy. No govt. official when questioned will do more than refer any ed. questions back to these traitors to reason acting as their "professional" advisors, and then relay their ideology on.
All we, as a (seemingly uniquely concerned) society can do is to place our objections on record and keep this secure for historical reference. Our only hope at present lies in attempts to publicise our reactions to the continuing ed. folly directly to the public, via any of the media that continue to listen, and - perhaps most effective of all - in books pitched at a fairly popular level. For one thing, they are around much longer. Melanie Phillips' "All must have Prizes" is a model of scandal exposure of great impact that I for one will not ignore.
Brian

Page 50, Week 5, session 25:

"Guided Reading. The class teacher selects a text with patterned language from the appropriate level (probably Book Bands 3 - 4). Book introduction: Read the title. Talk about the cover illustration and encourage prediction of the content. Take a 'picture walk' through the book, talking briefly about what the children can see in the pictures. Prepare them to read any unfamiliar vocabulary. Strategy Check: Remind the children to 'point with their eyes', and only use their fingers when stuck on a word. Prompt to: check picture, use initial phoneme, read the rest of the sentence."

This is everything that I would not do.

Where is the decoding from sounding out and blending? There is NO MENTION.

After such a supported start, you have told the children the story before requiring the process of reading. You have told the children to use guessing strategies, not decoding reading strategies, you have told the children any difficult vocabulary so they cannot rehearse their own knowledge and skills in blending. You have ruined the story itself because you have not enjoyed it for its own sake. You have taken the mystery, or ending, away from the children because you have gone through the book before the proper reading of it.

This is the way to both ruin a good story and to fail to teach your children to read independently and through methods which science promotes.

Instead, you have promoted reading methods which science and experience has shown can damage/retard/ create poor readers.

And every year one teacher and teaching assitant in England is currently being trained that these are acceptable ways to teach early reading. They are also led to believe that these methods are what the reading research shows are the best ways.

Can anyone dispute that this is educational malpractice?

Page 53. Week 6.

"Shared reading. Mask a word within a sentence. Read the whole sentence and encourage the children to guess the word from the meaning of the sentence as a whole; cross-check by looking at the initial sound, final sound, and then the whole word."

THIS IS EXTRAORDINARY. DOES THIS BEAR ANY RESEMBLANCE TO SYNTHETIC PHONICS TEACHING? THE NLS TEAM AND GREG BROOKS CLAIM THAT THE NLS DOES INCLUDE SYNTHETIC PHONICS TEACHING. THERE IS NOT A SYNTHETIC PHONICS TEACHER IN THE WORLD WHO WOULD RECOGNISE THIS AS A SYNTHETIC PHONICS APPROACH.

FURTHERMORE, IT IS RECOGNISED THAT 'WEAK READERS' OR REMEDIAL READERS WOULD BE GIVEN VERY LARGE DOSES OF PHONICS TEACHING AS PART OF THAT REMEDIATION. THE ELS PROGRAMME IS 'AN EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAMME'.

THIS IS ASTOUNDING. THIS SUPPOSED EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAMME IS NOT A PHONICS PROGRAMME IN ANY SHAPE SIZE AND FORM. IT IS A WHOLE LANGUAGE PROGRAMME.

DOES ANYONE THINK THAT THIS IS A PHONICS PROGRAMME WHICH IS LIKELY TO REMEDIATE THE WEAK AND STRUGGLING READERS?

Page 67. Week 7, session 35.

"Strategy check: Remind the children to follow the print with their eyes and only use their finger if they get into difficulty. Talk about strategies for tackling new words, e.g. say the phonemes; see if the word looks like a word they know; read on and see what would make sense."

Now the teachers and teaching assistants have an additional reading strategy, "say the phonemes".

This is the second half of Year one. The children may have had one and a half years in the school setting. The reading strategy list is just beginning to advise "say the phonemes".

At this point, what do you think is the predominant way that teachers, teaching assistants and children have been led to believe they should 'read' text?

How automatically do you think that teachers and children alike will use their sounding out and blending strategy when looking at text?

I would say that if teachers, teaching assistants and children have followed this advice, their chances of becoming good OBJECTIVE readers are pretty slim.

I would say that they have no sense that to sound out and blend is the most fundamentally important decoding strategy.

I would say that they have been totally misled as to how to learn to read and spell.

What would you say?

I do hope that readers of this message in the UK will draw all my suggestions to the attention of their schools where the ELS programme is being used.

Such schools need to rethink their whole approach to teaching reading, dealing with weak and struggling readers, and identifying why the children are weak and struggling in the first place.

Any school which uses this programme does not understand the reading research and how best to teach reading to young children.

Page 153.

This is unbelievable - read on!

"Identification of ELS group. Frequently asked questions.

Half my class are likely to be in the target group - why is this?

A1. Feedback from the pilot schools has shown that when teachers considered the reasons for this, it was sometimes felt that this was because the school had not really got a structured phonics programme (Progression in Phonics or its equivalent) in place. Hence the great emphasis on this as part of the preparation for ELS."

Then, let us examine whether there is an "equivalent" phonics programme and what these equivalent programmes are.

First of all, Jolly Phonics is supposed to be such an equivalent programme according to the NLS advisers.

BUT IT IS NOT. First of all, Jolly Phonics is based on the reading research and has actually been used as a basis for research in its own right.

Progression In Phonics and the ELS programme have not been scientifically researched.

Progression in Phonics and the ELS programme promote the use of a range of reading strategies and the learning of an initial sight vocabulary.

Jolly Phonics and other reputable phonics programmes based on synthetic phonics teaching DO NOT PROMOTE AN INITIAL SIGHT VOCABULARY AND DO NOT PROMOTE THE USE OF A RANGE OF READING STRATEGIES WHICH LARGELY AMOUNT TO GUESSING.

The government phonics programmes and literature ARE NOT EQUIVALENT to many other phonics programmes such as Jolly Phonics, Fast Phonics First, Sounds Discovery, **.

If a school setting is using one of the above programmes as per the advice, you would not have such a group of weak and struggling readers and if you did (through immaturity etc as Vicki Lynch has pointed out) you would do more of the same phonics work and NOT THE TOP DOWN WHOLE LANGUAGE APPROACH OF THE ELS PROGRAMME.

Teachers are in danger of using programmes such as Jolly Phonics in a WHOLE LANGUAGE WAY because the government continues to promote a mixed methods approach. That is like putting arsenic and milk in your tea!

Thank you, Debbie. This is a gruelling and gruesome task and you tell it how it is - in such an elegant and direct way.

On Friday, I was asked to test 6.6 months girl who had arrived from a school in the Midlands. She had good phonemic awareness i.e. she could segment and blend reasonable well (ie when tested in my robot voice /d/ pause /o/pause /g/) and even used her fingers to count the phonemes. She performed the more difficult task of extracting a phoneme (ie 'what's "sack" without the /s/?' ) fairly well. However, this little girl had no phonic skills whatsoever and having a poor visual memory could not read ONE single word of the NFER Nelson first sentence.
As NLS instruction buries explicit instruction in a sea of Whole Language "Searchlights", this child, like thousands of others is left bewildered and incapacitated.
I wonder how many lecturers in Institutes of Education, could show their students how to teach this child?

Thankyou very much for taking the time to write all this Debbie. I wish Id read it before posting on the TES website. My ancillary was asking me which kids I wanted to do ELS after Christmas, in the back of my mind was a thought that it would clash with all the synthetic type approach I have been trying to introduce this year. I can now print off what you have posted and give it to my head when I chat to her about my class the first week back. I can think of better uses for my ancillaries time to help my class than doing the ELS programme.

Have been following the synthetic phonics discussion on the TES site for quite a while. I am a TA running ELS sessions.
Reading this message board I wondered if the same situation prevails in other schools as in mine. ELS groups run almost independently of other literacy teaching. Takeaway activities are rarely done. Class teachers do not link ELS sessions to the literacy hour as recommended. Consequently they are more or less unaware of what I am doing with the children. Is this lack of awareness of what's in the programme (ie it's left to the TA to deliver) one of the reasons that it remains so widely used?

Hi Elsy,

Welcome to our messageboard!

Whilst I am not privvy to what goes on in most schools, I suspect that the reason schools use the ELS programme is because they have been told to use it.

I would be very interested to hear what you, yourself, think of the synthetic phonics debate and the comments I have made about the ELS programme. Do you agree with any of them for example?

Please feel free to contradict me if you have found the programme to be useful. Do you follow it as per the instructions?

It is extraordinary that teachers have put blind faith in the programme and I, personally, find it extraordinary that teachers and TAs are not questioning it themselves wide and far!

Best wishes - I hope you reply!

Have to speak to senior management this week about this! Scarey. Not very good at explaining what I want to say so will show the messages you have posted Debbie

Hi Debbie,
I posted a reply very early this morning but it seems to have got lost. I'm afraid I can't remember now what I wrote as it was in the wee small hours.

No, I don't follow the script exactly and will try to find time over the next few weeks to note how I deviate, and feed back to you.