Here is a case in point about the need for clearer descriptions of provision and the continued undermining of the Year One phonics screening check - Megan Dixon writes about a seminar she attended and includes quotes from Professor Maggie Snowling:
Language learning all the way
https://staffrm.io/@damsoned/BhfcP8Ptdb
Before I am accused of being “anti-phonics” – I should make this clear. I am not anti-phonics, I am pro-language. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by Professor Maggie Snowling last Friday at a meeting jointly hosted by the EEF and the Nuffield Foundation- “Phonics is undoubtedly important but not sufficient.”
Now, I attended this same seminar - and caused a bit of a hoo-ha I have to say in the process. By this I mean that I experienced plenty of tutting and groaning as soon as it was clear I was referring to 'phonics'. I find this utterly dismaying. You would think there might be stony silence instead but, no, people still groan on the topic of phonics.
Having enjoyed Maggie Snowling's presentation on her research project focused on 'oral language' for early intervention, I was very disappointed (to say the least) when she summed up her talk with a blow to 'phonics' by saying '
there is too much emphasis on phonics'.
At this point, I raised my hand to speak and I commented that I had noted in the wider domain that there is a disconnect with people's understanding of 'phonics' provision and gave as an example the Education Endowment Foundation where the description on the webpage of 'Phonics' is impoverished. I drew attention to the fact that phonics
programmes should be content-rich and include plenty of vocabulary development and language comprehension. Therefore I raised the question as to whether we needed to distinguish more clearly '
between impoverished phonics provision and content-rich phonics programmes'. I wrote about this in a previous blog post where I criticise the EEF description of 'Phonics' in considerable detail but the bit I quote below is most relevant to this post:
https://phonicsintervention.org/2017/01 ... O6EPC.dpuf
EEF: What should I consider?
Before you implement this strategy in your learning environment, consider the following:
1. Phonics can be an important component in the development of early reading skills, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, it is also important that children are successful in making progress in all aspects of reading including vocabulary development, comprehension and spelling, which should be taught separately and explicitly.
Debbie: THIS IS A TOTALLY FLAWED STATEMENT. It’s not that phonics ‘can‘ be an important component in the development of early reading skills, phonics IS an extremely important component in the development of early reading skills – listed in The Five Pillars of Literacy.
Furthermore, if the EEF personnel were knowledgeable, they would know that a high-quality systematic synthetic phonics programme includes vocabulary development, comprehension and spelling. This does not preclude teachers from teaching vocabulary explicitly, and spelling additionally, outside of the main phonics lessons – and language comprehension should be part of every lesson, every day across the curriculum anyway.
It is plain wrong for the EEF to state, however, that the components of ‘vocabulary development, comprehension and spelling….should be taught separately and explicitly’ as if they are not part of phonics provision because they should be – and they certainly are included in all my phonics programmes and guidance! Do the EEF personnel not know this? Are they truly equipped for their roles and responsibilities?
It was in response to my comment that Maggie said that '
phonics is essential but not sufficient' (although notably Megan Dixon does not mention this in her piece) and then Maggie went on to mention the phonics check as Megan Dixon noted:
Because as Prof Snowling concluded “there is too much emphasis on phonics…. Why do we have a Phonics Screening Check that has nothing to do with oral language?”
This is not the first time Maggie Snowling (and colleagues) have questioned the advent of the phonics check which I noted in an article that I wrote for SEN Magazine here:
https://senmagazine.co.uk/articles/arti ... or-phonics
The well-publicised controversial issue raised in report three is the objection to the Year 1 phonics screening check. It is mystifying that a group of academics fails to note the confusion of teachers’ professional understanding and practice raised in the NFER report on the one hand and yet, in effect, adds its voice to the detractors of the phonics screening check on the other. In report three it states:
Educators have questioned its necessity, voicing concerns about whether the check will add any valuable information to what teachers already know about their pupils’ progress (e.g., National Union of Teachers, 2012). There have also been objections to the statutory nature of the check, with concerns about the resource implications of mandatory testing and the negative consequences when such tests become ‘high-stakes’ (e.g., Association of Teachers and Lecturers, 2011; Brooks, 2010). Indeed, a survey of nearly 3000 teachers – conducted after the administration of the check but before its results – reported that 87% of respondents did not agree with the statutory implementation of the check and thought it should be discontinued (ATL/NAHT/NUT, 2012).
The authors of report three go on to state that they “also consider whether, given our findings, it [the check] is necessary”.
In my article for SEN Magazine, I refer to three studies including a three-year survey by the National Foundation for Educational Research commissioned by the Department for Education in England. The three-year survey notes that it is looking like many teachers in England still employ multi-cueing reading strategies (as part of their
balanced approach no doubt).
Some time ago, based on my first-hand observations and noting video footage in the wider domain, I drew up a graphic to illustrate that phonics provision
can look very different in different schools and even in different classrooms in the same schools. So, when I refer to 'impoverished phonics' in comparison to 'content-rich phonics programmes', I am not picking these ideas out of thin air - my comments are based on evidence:
The Simple View of Schools' Phonics Provision
http://www.phonicsinternational.com/Sim ... chools.pdf
This brings us right back to the need for greater CLARIFICATION of what is going on in our schools under the name of 'phonics'.
At the same seminar, I spoke personally with Kevan Collins who heads up the Education Endowment Foundation. He defended the EEF description of 'phonics'.
I suggested that the EEF could surely use the considerable amount of money the foundation has been gifted with by the government for some kind of national survey of what is happening in our schools. Is there a distinction to be made and understood between 'impoverished phonics' (sometimes mixed with multi-cueing word-guessing strategies) and 'content-rich phonics programmes' (with no multi-cueing word-guessing strategies)?
The national average figure of children reaching or exceeding the benchmark in the Year One phonics screening check was 81% in 2016. This is still failing nearly 20% of our children. I keep drawing to people's attention, however, that 1,138 schools in 2016 taught 95% to 100% of their children to reach or exceed the benchmark. This figure is rising year on year. How can our academics not consider that this is proving to be invaluable information and important continuing professional development (CPD) for the teaching profession taking place in England?
Surely we are long overdue for very clear descriptions and distinctions regarding literacy provision in our schools?
