Dr Jennifer Buckingham: Focus on Phonics - a report recommending use of an annual phonics check

This is the hub of the site and the place to post queries, start discussions and join in the conversation!
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Dr Jennifer Buckingham: Focus on Phonics - a report recommending use of an annual phonics check

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

John Walker responds to Professor Misty Adoniou's comments via The Literacy Blog:

http://www.theliteracyblog.com
The continuation of the war against phonics by other means

Once again I feel obliged to respond to an article posted by Misty Adoniou in The Conversation and, as I have pointed out previously here and here, Misty is as foggy as her name when it comes to talking about phonics. In order to arrest the decline in reading ability, Australia is currently considering adopting the England’s Phonics Screening Check. Misty's opposition to a screening check is yet another opportunity to exercise her opposition to the rigorous implementation of phonics teaching throughout Australia - a step teachers and children are crying out for.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Dr Jennifer Buckingham: Focus on Phonics - a report recommending use of an annual phonics check

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

Jennifer Buckingham features in a radio interview about the proposed phonics check with Ellen Fanning on Radio National today. Well done Jennifer!

This is well-worth listening to:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... cs/8058124
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Dr Jennifer Buckingham: Focus on Phonics - a report recommending use of an annual phonics check

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

Here is another article in The Conversation - please do check out the 'readers comments' too:
Why Australia should trial the new phonics screening check
https://theconversation.com/why-austral ... heck-69717
In the face of unacceptably low literacy standards in Australian schools, the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) recently advocated a trial of the UK Phonics Screening Check (PSC) as one part of the solution.

A national PSC, similar to the program launched in the UK in 2012, is a worthwhile endeavour to boost not just literacy standards for students, but the ability of teachers to implement them effectively.

Phonics is a teaching method that focuses on the sounds within words – creating explicit links between these sounds and the letters that represent them.

It allows children to decode written words independently, without having to guess or be told what they are.

When taught well, phonics confers an essential skill set that helps all readers to decode text. It can be taught using off-the-shelf programs, but these are not necessary if teacher knowledge is strong.

Research from 2005 found:

Explicit teaching of alphabetic decoding skills is helpful for all children, harmful for none, and crucial for some.
This teaching is particularly beneficial for disadvantaged students who often sit in a “long tail of under-achievement”.

Despite these findings, no Australian state or territory has formally adopted the recommendations of the 2005 National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (NITL).
This is SHOCKING:

Despite these findings, no Australian state or territory has formally adopted the recommendations of the 2005 National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (NITL).
Why Australia should trial the new phonics screening check - Authors:

Pamela Snow
Professor and Head, Rural Health School, La Trobe University

Anne Castles
Deputy Director, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University

Kevin Wheldall
Emeritus Professor of Education, Macquarie University

Max Coltheart
Emeritus Professor, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University


Rod Ewins notes the same point about the lack of official uptake of the guidance in the 2005 NITL report and writes a 'reader's comment' thus:
One of the most disturbing sentences in this article is, “no Australian state or territory has formally adopted the recommendations of the 2005 National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (NITL).” That such a well-qualified group should have spent so long undertaking such a careful report, only to have it ignored by Education Ministers in EVERY STATE in Australia, goes a long way to explaining the problems of poor literacy and illiteracy in this country. There would be few if any of those ministers who could match the knowledge, experience and qualifications of ANY of the expert panel who compiled the report, let alone the combined wisdom of them all. Yet they choose to march to the beats of their own tiny drums instead.

I just had a look over the Report and Recommendations. It covers many of the points made by the various respondents to this article, including assessment. The whole report seems to me to be an eminently fair and well-balanced examination of the available evidence on the subject. That Education Ministers in all of our States have chosen to ignore it is inexcusable, and parents should be taking them to task about it.
Darren Stopps agrees with Rod and writes:
Rod, it is unconscionably negligent that the report was entirely accepted and yet none of the recommendations ever enacted. The effect on generations of children, now functionally illiterate and semi-literate adults, is evident. The situation was desperate then, and another 11years of continued wrong practices has only increased the problem.
In a later comment, Darren writes:
The phonics test is essential to identify those at risk, but will only be helpful if it is backed up by evidence-based teaching. Something not evident in Australia (that’s not me saying that - it’s the comprehensive research). The substantial body of teaching practice, still uses faulty, damaging strategies for teaching reading. These have resulted in some of the highest (perhaps the highest) levels of functional illiteracy in the English speaking world. Despite this, and in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, they are still supported by many educational academics.

The “fear” of the phonics test might be that this will create an obligation for something to be done to address the problem, and the expertise and knowledge to do so is not there.

44 sounds in English are represented by 70 phonograms (graphemes). Their pronunciation governed by a set of rules which ARE easily learned. The “confusion” then is gone. If only this was taught explicitly, and thoroughly.

The timing of this is poignant, as we see Australia’s recent rankings for academic performance slide to the depths.
Sally Howell writes in response to Darren Stops:
I couldn’t agree with you more but it is not only educational academics who promote damaging strategies. The NSW Department of Education has spent millions of dollars training teachers to implement the L3 Kindergarten literacy program supposedly designed for ‘at risk’ students. This training does not include how to teach phonics explicitly and systematically. It does include the three cueing system. Unsurprisingly ‘Literacy Leaders’ and L3 trainers are not required to have knowledge and experience in the delivery of explicit and systematic phonics instruction.

Strong relationships exist between universities and education departments such that senior bureaucrats are appointed as honorary or adjunct professors who then sit on university committees that make decisions about the content of teacher training courses.

As long as education departments are wedded to ‘practice as usual’, regardless of the evidence, the content of undergraduate training is unlikely to change. As suggested, a pilot of a phonics check will give a clear indication of whether there is a need for better, evidence based instruction in this crucial area. To date no amount of research evidence has been sufficient to move the non-believers but surely results of an Australia wide pilot will carry some weight.
Later, Darren Stops writes something which gets right to the heart of the matter - the continuation of multi-cueing reading strategies in the classroom which teach children to GUESS words and take them away from learning and applying the complex English alphabetic code and the phonics skill of sounding out and blending the sounds (synthesising). We KNOW that this damages at least some children in their reading development and in their long term reading reflex (habits). Darren writes:
If we look at the 2005 national inquiry, or the last 50 years or so of reading research, it does not support the comment about not needing explicit teaching of phonics, nor the assertion that children “already had instruction in phonics”. Quite the opposite on both counts.

It’s very clear that explicit teaching of synthetic phonics is NOT done in the vast majority of Australian classrooms, and that teachers are NOT adequately trained to understand phonics, let alone teach it.

Yes, there are large numbers of children who are terrified of reading because they fail. They fail because their only strategies for decoding the text are ineffective, confusing and nonsensical. Just pop into a classroom and see what strategies are posted on the wall - and what is sent home to parents. It’s false cues: guessing from the first letter, guessing form the shape of the word, guessing from the pictures, guessing from the context. Sometimes, the last point on the list might be to “try sounding out the word”. But wait - how can the child “sound out the word” when there is no instruction (or wrong instruction) in what sounds the letter groups make? In any case, the scientific evidence for analytic phonics isn’t there. Synthetic phonics has the evidence base - when taught explicitly.
Dick Schutz

Re: Dr Jennifer Buckingham: Focus on Phonics - a report recommending use of an annual phonics check

Post by Dick Schutz »

The Conversation and the conversation in Australia regarding "phonics" has not really changed in the last five years.
Kerry Heppenstall in 2011 made essentially the same arguments Jennifer Buckingham makes in 2016.
https://theconversation.com/sounding-of ... -read-1012

The conversation can be traced back further to Jeanne Chall's book in the 1960's or Rudolph Flesch's book in the 1950's--or much further back in history.

The "new" is a Screening Check. Some ideologs and interests find the prospect threatening. The comments to the blogs opposing the initiative echo the same mis-information and contrary opinions that have accompanied experience with the Check in England. The Aussie opposition is a bit different though: "We recognize "phonics" among other considerations. We just don't need the stinkin test."
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Dr Jennifer Buckingham: Focus on Phonics - a report recommending use of an annual phonics check

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

You're right, Dick, the call for phonics stems back decades. It is shocking, outrageous, unbelievable, that it is not at all guaranteed that wherever English is taught for reading and writing teachers provide a rigorous systematic synthetic phonics approach - and shocking that so many people WITH SOME AUTHORITY IN EDUCATION continue to protest about the advent of a phonics check.

Here is an example, this item is a blast from the past - October 2015 - when Sir Michael Wilshaw, then Chief Inspector for England, writes, 'Nobody can argue against the benefits of phonics'.

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/br ... ts-phonics

Sir Michael states:
The teaching of phonics has been one the most significant factors behind the increasing success of primary schools in England, according to the head of Ofsted.

Debate over the method has become hugely fraught, with opponents of phonics claiming it is tantamount to “child abuse”.

And in a move that is likely to fan the flames, Her Majesty’s chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw has stated that “nobody can still convincingly argue that systematic phonics isn’t the most effective method of teaching children to read”.

Sir Michael makes his comments in the first of what will be a monthly series of commentaries on the education system, in which he claims that primary schools are responsible for “highly impressive and encouraging statistics”.

One of the key drivers behind the success of primary schools, he says, is the widespread teaching of synthetic phonics.

“While far from universally popular when first introduced, the emphasis on phonics teaching is certainly bearing fruit,” Sir Michael writes. “As noted recently by schools minister Nick Gibb, the national phonics screening check demonstrates continuing, strong progress in this vital area of learning for the youngest pupils.

He adds: “Surely nobody can still convincingly argue that systematic phonics isn’t the most effective method of teaching children to read. The structured yet engaging way in which this is being done is something my inspectors increasingly report.”
But wait, someone has something begrudging and fudging to say:
In his own blog, Russell Hobby, general secretary of the NAHT headteachers' union, refutes Sir Michael’s claims, stating that the relative stability of the primary sector is a major contributor to the success of schools.

“Could it be that politicians' desire to look busy with reform could actually be one of the things standing in the way of a truly successful education system? It is notable, for instance, that the steady gains in literacy that we're seeing at the end of primary actually precede the introduction of the government's flagship phonics screening check. The chief inspector could usefully draw attention to the price of excessive of change.”
And are we not seeing this same begrudging and fudging from teachers' union leaders in Australia?

Any parents reading these postings and developments would rightly despair at the level of resistance to a simple phonics check - a transparent, objective, national snapshot of how children are doing after perhaps up to two years of phonics instruction!
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Dr Jennifer Buckingham: Focus on Phonics - a report recommending use of an annual phonics check

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

Blogger and trainer for the phonics programme 'Sounds-Write' writes about the validity of the phonics screening check in England:
How valid is the phonics screening check
http://literacyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... check.html

John refers to research looking into the validity of the check:
The Journal of Research in Reading has just published an important and timely paper on the government’s phonics screening check ‘Validity and sensitivity of the phonics screening check: implications for practice’ (Duff, F.J., Mengoni, S. E., Bailey, A.M. and Snowling, M.J.

It asks two ‘critical ‘ questions: First, how well do scores on the screening check ‘correlate with reading skills measured by objective tests’? And, second, ‘is the check sensitive?’, which refers to how sensitive is the check is in detecting children ‘showing early signs of being at-risk of encountering a reading difficulty?’

The study involved eight primary schools in York and included 292 children. Aside from the screening check, an array of other tests was administered. These included school-based assessments, class spelling tests, individualised word reading, comprehension, nonword reading and phonological awareness tests.

So, how valid is the check? Does it measure what it claims to measure? The authors conclude that the check is ‘a highly valid measure of children’s phonics skills’. Moreover, the check ‘showed convergent validity by correlating strongly with other measures of phonics skills and with broader measures of reading’. The latter includes ‘single-word reading accuracy, prose reading accuracy and comprehension’. This should provide strong justification on the part of the government to introduce the check, though as Hans Eysenck once remarked, deological thinking is not easily swayed by factual evidence’*.


Dick - you and I left 'readers' comments' in response.

Interestingly, I wrote an article for SEN magazine in 2014 which also included reference to the research paper above and which reflects on some of the resistance to the phonics check in England from both academics and teachers' union leaders:

https://senmagazine.co.uk/articles/arti ... or-phonics

And here is the graphic I designed to illustrate how phonics provision can look very different indeed even when all teachers 'do' phonics - they might not do it rigorously and they might mix phonics provision with multi-cueing reading strategies (amounting to much guessing of words):

The Simple View of Schools' Phonics Provision:

https://phonicsinternational.com/Simple ... chools.pdf

I just hope that the uptake of a phonics screening check in Australia will rapidly focus teachers' minds on the need for quality phonics provision because the clock is ticking for the children themselves. This is really a hugely important issue - and as you point out, Dick, the call for phonics has been going on for a very long time.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Dr Jennifer Buckingham: Focus on Phonics - a report recommending use of an annual phonics check

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, confirms his commitment to a 'light touch phonics check' in his statement in response to the latest PISA results:
Minister urges cooperation to address 'worrying' education results

A leading international education snapshot released overnight shows Australian science students are now seven months behind where they were in 2006, an Australian maths student is a year of schooling behind where they were in 2003 and Australian students’ reading abilities have also dropped by a year since 2000.

Minister for Education and Training Simon Birmingham said Australia continued to perform above the OECD average in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report but despite Australia’s many “dedicated and hard-working” teachers and record levels of federal funding for our schools, the results also highlight clear trends of declining real and international performance of Australian Year Nine students.
http://www.senatorbirmingham.com.au/Med ... on-results
“The Turnbull Government’s Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes reforms outlined in May includes more than a dozen initiatives backed by experts that evidence shows will help Australian young people to get more out of their schooling.

“Many of the Turnbull Government’s quality reforms are designed to directly tackle Australia’s falling mathematics, reading and science skills, including a ‘back to basics’ focus on more teachers specialising in literacy and numeracy and qualified to teach science, technology, engineering or maths subjects, ensuring aspiring university students complete a maths or science subject to attain an ATAR, setting minimum literacy and numeracy standards for Year 12s and the introduction of a ‘light touch’ phonics assessment for year one students to identify those students struggling earlier."
[My shading!]
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Dr Jennifer Buckingham: Focus on Phonics - a report recommending use of an annual phonics check

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

Professor Pamela Snow writes a post via her blog about the fierce arguments linked to the recommendations for the uptake of a Year One phonics check in Australia:
Can't teachers be part of the solution?
http://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewto ... 1265#p1265

I've also posted Pamela's piece on a separate thread.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Dr Jennifer Buckingham: Focus on Phonics - a report recommending use of an annual phonics check

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

This blog post written by John Walker of 'Sounds-Write' may be helpful for the scenario in Australia where critics of Dr Jennifer Buckingham's recommendations for adopting a phonics check in Australia are objecting via articles and twitter.

In this post, John flags up my review of critics' various protestations to the phonics check in England - I hope this information might be helpful for the Australian context as battle ensues with the detractors:

http://literacyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... ening.html
Debbie Hepplewhite confounds screening check critics

By kind permission of Debbie Hepplewhite, I am posting, in its entirety, her response on the Reading Reform Foundation to an article by Graeme Paton in yesterday’s Telegraph newspaper.

Debbie’s post provides an excellent risposte to many of the issues raised in Paton’s piece, titled “Compulsory reading test 'should be scrapped'” and straplined ‘Bright children are being “failed” by the Coalition’s controversial new reading test for six-year-olds, literacy experts warned today’.
See also John's later post with reference to Australian critics of the proposed phonics check:
The know-nothing world of the academic opposition to phonics

If you want to know why so many Australian (and English) academics are so strongly opposed to a Phonics Screening Check, which really is a fig leaf for their hostility to phonics teaching itself, it is that, at bottom, they don’t understand the relationship between the sounds of the language and the writing system itself.
http://literacyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... demic.html
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Dr Jennifer Buckingham: Focus on Phonics - a report recommending use of an annual phonics check

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

The 'THRASS Institute' has this to say about the uptake of a phonics check in Australia:

http://au.educationhq.com/news/37536/uk ... knowledge/
UK phonics test useless without fundamental knowledge

Phonics screening in principle, has the potential to identify those with or at risk of a learning difficulty such as Dyslexia in the early years but only if a valid test is administered.
This is a really important issue for all Australian tax payers, especially for those with young children who have the potential to benefit from this screening.

There are many, many parents who will tell you their child could read before starting school and then regressed once being exposed to a letter sounds/initial sounds program continuum such as Jolly Phonics or Letterland.

The problem with using the proposed UK Phonics Check is that the test relies heavily on teachers having adequate understanding of phonetics and the orthography of English to mark the test. If the teacher administering the test does not have adequate understanding and relies on the answer sheet provided, they will not be able to competently analyse their learners’ plausible answers.

This risks learners with a more comprehensive knowledge of phonic patterns and a more developed understanding of orthography being scored lower in the test than their peers with more limited knowledge.
England's phonics check is not designed to provide a deep analysis of children's reading ability or learning difficulties. Guidance is provided for teachers regarding pronunciation alternatives and words are chosen to avoid ambiguity of pronunciation wherever possible.

In any event, research has shown a correlation between findings of England's Year One Phonics Screening Check compared to screening children with various standardised tests:

Published in the Journal of Research in Reading (UKLA, May 2014), Validity and sensitivity of the phonics screening check: implications for practice, by Duff, Mengoni, Bailey and Snowling, investigates “whether the check is a valid measure of phonic skill and is sensitive in identifying children at risk of reading difficulties”. In this study, teacher assessments of phonics skills were obtained for 292 six-year-old children along with additional psychometric data for 160 of these children. The results showed that “The check was strongly correlated with other literacy skills and was sensitive in identifying at-risk readers".

[Please note: The day after I added this post, the link above no longer led to the THRASS Institute piece. If anyone manages to access the item, please do let me know and I'll re-post the link. Thank you.]
Post Reply