Eng & other countries: Official guidance of what to do and NOT to do when teaching reading!

News articles, interviews, research, events and lots more - ready for your comments.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Eng & other countries: Official guidance of what to do and NOT to do when teaching reading!

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:23 am

We are very lucky in England because official guidance from the Department for Education is very clear that not only should the alphabetic code (letter/s-sound correspondences) be taught explicitly and systematically (from print to sound for reading, and from sound to print for spelling - teaching the code as a 'reversible' code), AND it is also made clear that the 'multi-cueing word-guessing reading strategies' are damaging, and that it is beneficial for beginners to be given the opportunity for independent reading to read 'cumulative, decodable reading books' so that they are not caused to 'guess' to lift unknown (unfamiliar) printed words off the page.

Here is the wording of the 'notes' of the official guidance in England (not the whole UK as there are also problems with the official guidance in the other countries of the UK. England stands alone as being fully on board with research-informed official guidance):


‘... children should not be expected to use strategies such as whole-word recognition and/or cues from context, grammar, or pictures.’

‘... phonic work is seen not as one of a range of optional methods or strategies for teaching reading but as a body of knowledge and skills about how the alphabet works, which all children should be taught.’


One of the most worrying issues from official guidance from other countries with reference to the teaching of reading is the PERSISTENCE of describing, in effect, multi-cueing word-guessing which is so DISCREDITED in the body of research on reading instruction.

Currently (as I start this thread) for example, the guidance from Ontario, Canada, is being circulated via Twitter for the concern it is causing.

Here is the wording from the guidance in Ontario:

Reading Unfamiliar Words

3.2 predict the meaning of and solve unfamiliar words using different types of cues, including:

semantic (meaning) cues e.g., familiar words, phrases, sentences, and visuals that activate existing knowledge of oral and written language;


I cannot see the whole of the guidance from the tweeted screenshot so I shall have to return to this post when I have the full guidance for multi-cueing to quote.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng: Official guidance of what NOT to do when teaching reading!

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:48 am

We need to add wording from other 'official' guidance around the world to show in what a parlous state teacher-training and guidance continues to be.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng: Official guidance of what NOT to do when teaching reading!

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:11 am

Brilliant, Alicia Smith (@AliciaFromTiny) has provided this link via Twitter with a full explanation of the state of play in Ontario - thank you so much!

Here you go. If you are interested in learning more about the current state of literacy instruction in Ontario I would suggest the IDA Ontario website, we have a very detailed position statement and this overview page: https://idaontario.com/literacy-in-onta ... c-schools/


The International Dyslexia Association, Ontario


https://www.idaontario.com/literacy-in- ... c-schools/

The link above leads to clear and brilliant information - and provides an explanation, with research references, of why multi-cueing word-guessing is simply not acceptable in official guidance (and teaching provision) - and this illustrates what a very parlous state teacher-training continues to be in so many countries.

Even in England, we keep pointing out that the multi-cueing word-guessing persists with the advent of the Reading Recovery organisation being entrenched in the Institute of Education. No official ever responds to this - no accountability even in England to this state of affairs whereby teachers receive mixed messages about how and what they should teach.

The teaching of reading should not be left to chance - and yet the guidance and training that teachers receive is very different according to the chance of where teachers are trained and regional influential advisors.

This is not acceptable and everyone should be concerned.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng & other countries: Official guidance of what to do and NOT to do when teaching reading!

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:35 am

From Alicia in response to this thread:

Alicia Smith
@AliciaFromTiny
Replying to
@debbiehepp
In Ontario we have been looking at the curriculum from England and comparing it to our own. Many of us are hoping that the results of the current public inquiry will be that our curriculum is discarded entirely and replaced with something very similar to yours.


Dr Linda Siegel from Canada, and Professor Tim Conway from America, and I, have been 'expert witnesses' for a case of complaint in Scotland (Sir Jim Rose asked me to look into this complaint) which is not yet completed so I cannot say more, but the heart of the complaint is a boy with dyslexia who has not been taught according to the research on reading. As IFERI followers will be aware, Anne Glennie has been campaigning for a change to official guidance and teacher-training in Scotland (her petition has been signed from people all around the world - many with deep expertise in this field), see here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=911


Dr Linda Siegel is a founding member of the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction:

https://iferi.org/team-members-profile/ ... el:-Canada

As is Anne Glennie:

https://iferi.org/members/anne-glennie/#more-47

As is Sir Jim Rose:

https://iferi.org/members/sir-jim-rose- ... a/#more-51

As is Gordon Askew who supported Anne Glennie as an expert witness in the associated enquiry:

https://iferi.org/members/gordon-askew/#more-52


It is plain to see what an 'international' affair it is trying to get the findings from a long-standing body of international research into the official guidance for reading instruction, into the teacher-training establishments and into the schools.

Meanwhile, untold misery is caused to children all over the world - needlessly.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng & other countries: Official guidance of what to do and NOT to do when teaching reading!

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:58 am

Further:

Alicia Smith
@AliciaFromTiny
·
4m
Replying to
@debbiehepp
Linda Siegel has also been retained by the Ontario Human Rights Commission for the current #RightToRead inquiry. Our Education ministry refuses to adopt evidence so we have been making the case that it is a human rights issue, see: http://ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/ohrc-l ... ic-inquiry



The OHRC may also request information or assistance from the Ministry of Education, the Ontario College of Teachers, as well as faculties of education. It has retained Dr. Linda Siegel to assist with the inquiry. Dr. Siegel is Professor Emeritus with the University of British Columbia’s Faculty of Education and an international authority in the field of reading disabilities.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng & other countries: Official guidance of what to do and NOT to do when teaching reading!

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:22 pm

This message is from Susan Godsland, also a founding committee member of the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction. Susan has supplied some snippets of official documents in England. What this demonstrates is that in England it is not only the Department for Education that is on board with research-informed reading instruction but also England's Ofsted inspectorate with regard to inspections in schools AND in teacher-training establishments:


Hi Debbie,
Saw your request on twitter - the various wordings are scattered all over my website


Susan's heavily referenced (award winning) site: http://www.dyslexics.org.uk

Here's one February 2020. Ofsted's new inspection handbook (out for consultation) states that primary ITT providers will be rated inadequate for quality of education and training if they teach any reading (decoding) methods other than systematic synthetic phonics.

p39. ''For primary phase, training will ensure that trainees learn to teach early reading using systematic synthetic phonics as outlined in the ITT core content framework and that trainees are not taught to use competing approaches to early reading that are not supported by the most up-to-date evidence''

Here's teacher standards 2012

Teachers’ Standards.

In order to meet the standard, trainee teachers should by the end of their training:

• know and understand the recommendations of the Rose Review 2006; and the Simple View of Reading
and be able to apply this understanding to their teaching of reading and writing.

• know and understand the alphabetic code

• know and understand the Criteria for assuring high quality phonic work (DfE, 2011) and be able to recognise how they are met in a range of phonic programmes

• be able to apply their knowledge and understanding of the Criteria to the teaching and assessment of phonics using a school’s phonic programme

• be able to identify, and provide targeted support for, children making progress both beyond and below the expected level

Perhaps important to note though that in a paper on numeracy and literacy catch-up strategies, the DfE itself acknowledged that phonics was usually still taught alongside multi-cue word-guessing strategies: ''Phonics has been shown to be a very effective approach for young readers (4-7 year olds), though it is usually embedded as part of a balanced approach'' (italics added. DfE 2018)

Couple from NC

-England's National Curriculum states that pupils in year 1 should, ''read aloud accurately books that are consistent with their developing phonic knowledge and that do not require them to use other strategies to work out words''.


-the NC requires that phonics is taught as 'the route to decoding print'



About Susan Godsland:

https://iferi.org/members/susan-godsland/#more-41
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng & other countries: Official guidance of what to do and NOT to do when teaching reading!

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:40 pm

Here is more detailed information about developments in the Department for Education and in Ofsted in England - clearly shining a light on the need for all stakeholders to be on board with evidence-informed reading instruction, the seriousness of this field, and the need to keep on championing the highest rigour of teacher-training and implementation in schools:

Ofsted 'deep dives':

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1319

DfE 'English Hubs' initiative for early reading instruction:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1233

I agree with Susan that it's important to note that when it comes to intervention and the children struggling the most to learn to read, they may well be the very children who continue to be given 'multi-cueing reading strategies' and it is very worrying indeed that we still have officials throughout the United Kingdom who recommend intervention programmes that are not underpinned by the findings of research so multi-cueing persists.

Some intervention and literacy programmes even quote Sir Jim Rose and his world-renowned paper in such a way that suggests those programmes are underpinned by the findings of research and Sir Jim Rose's recommendations. On close scrutiny, however, a number of commonly-used literacy and intervention programmes may well include systematic phonics teaching but mixed with multi-cueing reading strategies. This DOES NOT amount to the 'systematic synthetic phonics teaching principles' but it can be very hard for teachers to understand this and they can blindly provide the programmes that they have been guided, or instructed, to use.

These programmes are fundamentally flawed, and their delivery can CAUSE or EXACERBATE dyslexia.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng & other countries: Official guidance of what to do and NOT to do when teaching reading!

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Thu Apr 16, 2020 2:06 pm

Thank you to teacher Rob Randel for providing a link to the 'professional standards' for teachers in Wales. This is, quite frankly, not just dismaying - it's unaccountable when there is so much information about reading instruction readily available via the internet nowadays. Officials and advisors in Wales are well aware of the reading debate including the parliamentary inquiries which took place in England and the subsequent recommendations in Sir Jim Rose's Final Report (2006) which were accepted and adopted by England's Department for Education since 2006.

Rob Randel
@robrandel
Replying to
@debbiehepp


In stark contrast to England's teaching standards, Wales has absolutely no mention of teaching reading within its professional standards.
https://hwb.gov.wales/storage/1e4ebd38- ... -wales.pdf

Return to “Around the World: News and Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests