https://www.senmagazine.co.uk/articles/ ... or-phonics
I have commented upon important links between these three reports which might not be noticed or understood well enough if people do not consider the information contained in the reports collectively.Debbie Hepplewhite looks at the progress, practice and problems of synthetic phonics teaching in schools
Three different, but inter-related, reports on synthetic phonics were published in May 2014. All three reports are interesting and informative but, in some ways, they leave us with more questions than answers. They certainly raise serious questions regarding early literacy provision for children generally and for widely recognised vulnerable groups:
*do teachers embrace in full the systematic synthetic phonics teaching principles described in government guidance and in the core phonics programmes that they purport to follow?
*what does the widespread objection to the 40-word Year 1 phonics screening check actually reflect?
*what approach and programmes really serve children best, particularly those who are slower to learn or with special needs?
This is an important commentary for teachers, parents and politicians!
These are the three reports concerned:
References
Walker M., Bartlett S., Betts, H., Sainsbury M., Worth, J., – National Foundation for Educational Research (2014): Phonics screening check evaluation, online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... evaluation [accessed 19/05/14], Department for Education.
Grant, M. (2014) Longitudinal Study from Reception to Year 2 (2010-2013) and Summary of an earlier Longitudinal Study from Reception to Year 6 (1997-2004), online at http://www.rrf.org.uk/pdf/Grant%20Follo ... 202014.pdf [accessed 19/05/14].
Duff, F.J., Mengoni, S.E., Bailey, A.M., Snowling, M.J. (2014), Validity and sensitivity of the phonics screening check: implications for practice, in Carroll J. (ed.), Journal of Research in Reading, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 12029/full [accessed 19/05/14], UKLA.