The NUT challenges the promotion of Systematic Synthetic Phonics by Nick Gibb. Susan Godsland provides evidence for SSP

News articles, interviews, research, events and lots more - ready for your comments.
Post Reply
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

The NUT challenges the promotion of Systematic Synthetic Phonics by Nick Gibb. Susan Godsland provides evidence for SSP

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

It is utterly dismaying, and extremely worrying, when teaching unions undermine and challenge the evidence and promotion for Systematic Synthetic Phonics.

In England's context, Minister Nick Gibb has worked hard for many years to make evidence-informed reading instruction 'cross party' and to promote the provision of Systematic Synthetic Phonics in England.

Here is an NUT (National Union of Teachers) post giving a flavour of a major teaching union's undermining of Nick Gibb's work and, therefore, the undermining of the provision of Systematic Synthetic Phonics - this is a travesty (and note the unprofessional sarcasm which I have highlighted in red):
Synthetic phonics – show us the evidence!

15 March 2018
https://www.teachers.org.uk/education-p ... ic-phonics
Policymaking in a vitally important field of English education has been captured by the views of one man: the schools minister, Nick Gibb. Few in the field would see this as news. But its implications do need considering.

Anyone in any doubt should consider what went on at an event last month, held at the Department for Education (DfE), where the Government sought to offer details on a range of recently-announced initiatives in the sphere of English teaching for children aged up to seven.

The gathering, on 27 February, saw the DfE setting out “procurement opportunities” for attendees who ranged from representatives of literacy charities to private firms. They were given details of a new Centre of Excellence for Literacy Teaching (CELT) and a network of 35 associated English “hubs” – which together have been valued at a reported £26 million – plus smaller contracts for “phonics roadshows” and “phonics partnerships”.

How does this relate to Mr Gibb? Well, as you might have guessed, given his widely-known pre-occupation with phonics teaching, the focus of all of the above initiatives was very much on the f-sorry ph-word.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The NUT challenges the promotion of Systematic Synthetic Phonics by Nick Gibb. Susan Godsland provides evidence for

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

But, worry not, IFERI committee member, Susan Godsland, provides plenty of evidence - historic and current - to show the efficacy of Systematic Synthetic Phonics - and also to reflect the ongoing challenges and need to keep rebutting these challenges whatever their source.

See the two links below from Susan Godsland's excellent website - packed with information, evidence and references:

http://www.dyslexics.org.uk/ideology.htm

http://www.dyslexics.org.uk/phonics_evidence.htm

I want to say here that Susan Godsland is an unsung hero of the reading debate. The information on her website is invaluable and possibly without peer as an up-to-date body of accessible information. Susan Godsland makes no earnings whatsoever for her work and commitment to the field of reading and spelling instruction.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The NUT challenges the promotion of Systematic Synthetic Phonics by Nick Gibb. Susan Godsland provides evidence for

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

Before 'Systematic Synthetic Phonics' became recognised as a set of teaching principles for beginning reading instruction, the prevailing approach to any phonics provision was invariably 'analytic phonics' which featured a focus on initial letters and sounds, followed by final letters and sounds, followed by medial letters and sounds - because the 'medial' sound was considered very difficult for youngsters compared to identifying first and last sounds. Synthetic phonics, however, teaches 'all through the word' phonics from the outset - as soon as just a very small handful of letter-sound correspondences have been introduced.

Susan Godsland has selected the following explanation of the critical differences between 'analytic phonics' as an approach and 'synthetic phonics' as an approach - derived from researchers Rhona Johnston and Joyce Watson of 'Clackmannanshire' fame:
''As analytic phonics as well as synthetic phonics can involve sounding and blending, how can these two methods be distinguished? According to the National Reading Panel (2000, 2-89), in analytic phonics children analyse letters sounds after the word has been identified, whereas in synthetic phonics the pronunciation of the word is discovered through sounding and blending. Another critical difference is that synthetic phonics teaches children to sound and blend right at the start of reading tuition, after the first few letter sounds have been taught. In analytic phonics children learn words at first largely by sight, having their attention drawn only to the initial letter sounds. Only after all of the letter sounds have been taught in this way is sounding and blending introduced. It can be seen therefore that the phonics approach advocated in the National Literacy Strategy is of the analytic type'' (Johnston & Watson. Accelerating Reading and Spelling with Synthetic Phonics)
Please note: The 'National Literacy Strategy' referred to above was rolled out in 1998 in England but the multi-cueing 'Searchlight' reading strategies of the original NLS have been superseded by the rationale of the 'Simple View of Reading' (Gough and Tunmer, 1986) which has been widely shown by research as a helpful model of understanding what it means to be a reader in the full sense. The Simple View of Reading was recommended by Sir Jim Rose (Final Report, 2006) and accepted by the, then, Government and subsequent governing parties.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The NUT challenges the promotion of Systematic Synthetic Phonics by Nick Gibb. Susan Godsland provides evidence for

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

I just received this comment about the NUT post via one of my networks:
If you read the list of NUT blogs running down the side of this one, it is astonishing that all of them take issue with virtually every aspect of Government education policy. It seems that they cannot find a good word for anything this government has to offer, especially when Nick Gibb is involved. These blogs are political and polemical rather than supportive of rational debate. Whatever is thought about government policy this kind of wholesale rhetoric from a senior professional association beggars belief.

Turning to the writer’s title: ‘Synthetic Phonics- Show us the evidence!’ - we might pose another question: ‘Synthetic phonics – show us the evidence that it does not succeed when taught systematically by well trained teachers?’
Interestingly, more and more people are turning the tables on the critics of the promotion of Systematic Synthetic Phonics and asking the critics if they can supply evidence to show that other approaches to reading instruction are better (such as 'whole word', 'whole language', 'analytic phonics', 'mixed methods', 'balanced literacy').

''(T)hose who have an opposing view [to synthetic phonics] have yet to produce any data showing that their favoured approach produces greater long-term benefits'' (Prof.Rhona Johnston)
Post Reply