Would universal use of England's Year One Phonics Screening Check provide a 'wake-up call' to all schools?

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

I didn't know what 'title' to give this topic as it is quite multi-faceted.

This is a message provided by a parent via a private forum but I believe it is so important, and reflects such a common state of affairs in far too many schools in English-speaking countries, that I asked permission to copy the message to the IFERI forum as a typical example of the frustrations experienced by many parents (and their poor children), and to continue to highlight the potential of the 'universal' uptake of England's Year One Phonics Screening Check.

Here is the message - and I shall comment further below the message:

I would agree that teachers shouldn't be held responsible for teaching what they haven't been taught at Uni but what about the school administration team's responsibility to create a culture of school improvement and self-reflection in its teachers?

And the education department's responsibility to provide appropriate guidance to schools?

I say this because recent dealings with my son's primary school have left me feeling a little 'parent bashed'.

My son in Year 2 is having difficulties with reading fluency (rather than accuracy) and spelling. The school promotes a multi-cueing approach to reading unfamiliar words in text, does not provide decodable readers to beginning readers and promotes memorising lists of sight words. Guidance to parents is to "avoid sounding out words, or encouraging students to sound out, as their knowledge of phonics is limited at this stage and it slows down their reading and causes child to lose meaning" and that 'frightened' is an acceptable miscue for 'scared' etc.

We were told in our latest meeting that the school sought guidance from the Primary Support - Literacy team of the WA Education department. The Literacy support team believed that the inclusion of synthetic phonics as a recommended approach in early years classrooms in the WA Education Director General's Focus 2016 policy document was premature as proper guidance for implementation was not yet available (?) and recommended that the school continue with what they are doing. They provided the Education Endowment Foundation's evidence for Phonics document as their rationale ("Phonics can be an important component in the development or early reading skills, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds"). Another source in the department has since told me that the Literacy support team do also recommend synthetic phonics to schools but the school didn't say this to us as parents. The school admitted to reading only "some" of the literature we had provided.

So there will be no further training in phonics instruction as a school and a refusal to alter the written guidance given to parents encouraging multi-cueing and avoiding sounding-out. The principal also mentioned that he didn't want a situation where teachers were doubting themselves. One of the deputies at the meeting recommended that we should follow her own example which was to not get involved with how her daughter was being taught at the school she attended. What they did offer was for the deputy with a literacy support role to work with my son in Term 2 using the Sounds-Write phonics program and we accepted that offer. Go figure.

Consequently, I am also a big supporter of introducing a mandatory phonics screening check in Australia at least at the end of Yr 1.

The only measures (apart from my informal observations of reading behaviours) that identified my son's difficulties were the UK phonics check, a standardised spelling test and the timed reading tests (TOWRE and YARC) at the beginning of Yr 2. Nothing quantitative I looked at before Year 2 flagged concerns. Perhaps the introduction of a check would encourage a culture of self-reflection?

This message, then, is important, worrying and indeed fascinating for a number of reasons which I shall endeavour to outline here:

1)Let us not diminish that there is a real child involved here. The child is making reading progress, but clearly the parent is worried that there are some difficulties with reading fluency and with spelling. Very clearly the school is what we refer to as a 'multi-cueing' or 'mixed methods' school - and yet 'multi-cueing reading strategies' which amount to guessing words from initial letter, picture cues, context cues and 'what would make sense' have been discredited by research for many years - but also what is clear is that either people don't fully understand this, or choose to disregard this. We know for a fact that at least some children's reading and spelling progress, and their self-esteem, can be damaged by the use of 'multi-cueing reading strategies'. This is not a small issue, it is a huge issue for the child - and for other children. How can parents themselves be expected to tackle this when even researchers and politicians know 'multi-cueing strategies' persist and they are even embodied in widespread interventions such as the infamous Reading Recovery programme. Potentially damaging reading strategies taught to the weakest readers!

2) Even in England where Systematic Synthetic Phonics is now embedded in the statutory national curriculum, following a three-year survey of teachers' reading instruction practices and their views on the Year One Phonics Screening Check (which is statutory in England), it became clear that the picture of what teachers actually taught was NOT CLEAR - and it could be that many teachers still employ 'multi-cueing reading strategies' either deliberately or misguidedly. This is an issue for teacher-training, teacher supervisors (senior management) and accountability.

3)The parent who wrote this message is a knowledgeable parent regarding reading instruction, international research and so on, and was prepared and able to pursue this with the school and other official organisations. This revealed a lack of joined-up thinking and provision regarding guidance, training and, actually, accountability. Nowadays there are so many 'organisations' and 'authorities' involved in providing education and in running schools, and in training teachers, and so many people offering different guidance or interpreting guidance differently, that you can see even from this message that the context is a quagmire of officialdom. This is an issue for who is ultimately responsible for unpicking the quagmire of contradictory guidance down to the actual provision for children whether mainstream or special needs. This is an issue of consistency and accountability based on the findings of a body of research and best practice informed by that research.

The parent in the message, surprisingly (at least I was surprised), described that attention had been paid by authorities in Australia to the description of 'phonics' by the Educational Endowment Foundation in England. Oh my goodness - what synchronicity. Only recently I have informally, but heavily, criticised the description of 'phonics' provided on the EEF website and I have taken this up with the organisation on an informal basis (meaning I don't have the time to write an official letter but have spoken with EEF personnel and exchanged emails).

In other words, it is looking like some authoritative people in Australia are able to use the weak and flawed description of 'phonics' on England's Education Endowment Foundation as an excuse for not pushing through with Systematic Synthetic Phonics guidance, training and provision.

I shall draw this to the attention of the Education Endowment Foundation of course.

I shall also link to this thread via IFERI's Parents' Forum.

I suggest that regardless of schools' reading instruction methods and content, England's Year One Phonics Screening Check used universally would provide a fundamentally important resource to guide everyone teaching foundational literacy as to their teaching effectiveness.

I know that this would be a wake-up call - a shock to many (reassuring to some) - but it would focus everyone's minds and actions on heeding the research and best practice findings.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Dr Jennifer Buckingham, director of the 'Five from Five' project in Australia, and a member of IFERI's advisory group, has written a piece about the potential of using a 'universal' phonics screening check:

http://www.afr.com/leadership/innovatio ... 429-goi7bd

Teaching phonics to kids is cheap but has a big pay-off

As the federal government looks for cost effective education reforms, teaching reading using phonics is an obvious place to start.

In Tuesday's federal budget, the government will be under intense pressure to markedly increase school funding while restraining growth in spending across the board. Education Minister Simon Birmingham must therefore find education policies that are likely to have a large impact at a low cost.

Reading instruction is the obvious place to start. One of the strongest findings in education research is that children who have explicit instruction in phonics – how to 'decode' words using letter-sound relationships –are more likely to become successful early readers.

According to some academics and teachers, phonics is already embedded in school literacy programs. However, reading specialists argue that Australia's low literacy levels are because most schools do not teach phonics effectively.

This issue could be settled with a universal early phonics test such as the phonics screening check that is given to all year one students in Britain. A recent review found the test costs about £10 ($19) a student to administer.

The UK phonics screening check was introduced in 2012 after the Rose Review of the teaching of early reading in 2006 found one particular method of phonics instruction is most effective – synthetic phonics – and recommended its implementation in all schools. Unlike a similar recommendation in the Australian National Inquiry into Teaching Literacy in 2005, which was widely ignored, synthetic phonics was gradually introduced to all British primary schools from 2007. The phonics screening check reveals which schools are doing this well.

DISADVANTAGED BENEFIT

Last week, the London School of Economics published a study showing the effect of this policy. It found that children in schools where teachers had been trained in synthetic phonics had higher outcomes after one year at school and two years later. The benefits were greatest and most enduring for students from disadvantaged and non-English speaking homes. The report states that cost of the phonics teaching policy was "very modest" and "contributes to closing gaps based on disadvantage and (initial) language proficiency by family background".

An early phonics check in Australian schools would be useful for a number of reasons. It would provide objective information about which schools are teaching phonics well and which are not. The test is designed so that children cannot achieve a high score if they do not know how to decode words. The answers cannot be guessed by looking at pictures.

It would provide an early indication for parents and teachers about which students are struggling with this aspect of reading and need support. Early intervention is best, as initial gaps in reading ability grow over time and become more difficult to remedy. Our first standardised test of reading is in year 3 as part of the National Assessment Plan for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). Year 3 is arguably the youngest age at which many children will have the attention and capacity to take a pen-and-paper (soon to be computer-based) test.

YOUNGER CHILDREN ASSESSED

However, it is possible to assess younger children's reading using short oral reading tests. In the UK phonics screening check, the tester shows the child a series of words and they attempt to read them aloud. The test words are phonetically decodable – they can easily be read if children know phonic rules. Half the words are real words like "shelf", and half are pseudo-words like "yed". Pseudo-words are included because it is not possible for children to have learned them as sight words.

The ultimate goal is to become literate in the broader sense – and to hopefully enjoy reading. But children cannot read for enjoyment if they cannot read. A solid grasp of the code of written language is a necessary step to achieving that goal for all children.

In Britain, the phonics screening check followed the introduction of synthetic phonics to all schools. This is not the situation in Australia, so it may be more a case of what gets tested will get taught. Schools that are already teaching phonics well will welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their success.

Dr Jennifer Buckingham is a research fellow and director of the FIVE from FIVE reading project at The Centre for Independent Studies. http://www.fivefromfive.org.au

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

I've been reminded about this speech by Nick Gibb with reference to the improvements in teaching phonics, year on year, made by schools since the advent of the statutory Year One Phonics Screening Check in England:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... of-phonics

But to address the root cause of these challenges, the effective teaching of reading in our schools is crucial. In government, as we have delivered far-reaching reforms to our education system, we have made sure that these are grounded firmly in evidence. And with regard to the effective teaching of reading and raising standards of literacy, a substantial body of evidence shows that systematic synthetic phonics is the most effective way to teach all children to read, and that’s why we changed the national curriculum to make the requirements for phonics clearer.

To quote one report from the Australian National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy:

The evidence is clear […] that direct systematic instruction in phonics during the early years of schooling is an essential foundation for teaching children to read. […] Moreover, where there is unsystematic or no phonics instruction, children’s literacy progress is significantly impeded, inhibiting their initial and subsequent growth in reading accuracy, fluency, writing, spelling and comprehension.

We have made significant progress, with an increasing number of schools recognising that phonics teaching is the most effective approach. The new national curriculum, introduced in September last year highlights the importance of phonic knowledge and the decoding of words. Between 2011 and 2013, the government provided match funding to schools for phonics training and resources. More than 14,000 schools benefited from the £23.7 million we made available. We have published core criteria for effective phonics programmes and the catch up premium, worth £500 per pupil, also supports secondary schools to support pupils who did not attain level 4 or above in reading at the end of key stage 2. I would like to thank Gordon Askew for all the work he did in that period to support the department.

One of the most important developments has been the introduction of the phonics screening check for pupils at the end of year 1 in 2012. The check measures how many of 40 words and non-words pupils can decode successfully and helps to identify who may need further support. In 2012, 58% of pupils taking the check met the national standard. In 2013, it was 69% and by 2014, the proportion of pupils meeting the standard had risen to 74%: equivalent to 102,000 more 6-year-old children on track to read more effectively.

These results are encouraging. In 611 primary schools, some in the most deprived parts of the country, at least 95% of pupils met the expected standard in 2014, and many schools have recognised the positive impact the teaching of phonics has on reading and literacy. For example, Ark academy chain has set itself a target of “100% of pupils being proficient early readers” and in 2014 2 Ark schools achieved a 100% success rate - Ark Conway and Ark Globe. I have seen some of the strengths of the Ark approach for myself. On a recent visit to Ark Priory Primary in Ealing, I was impressed that the year 1 pupils were reading novels such as Horrid Henry.

Despite the improvements that have been made, there is significant disparity between local authorities, with some achieving a success rate of more than 81% in 2014 - from Darlington and Harrow to Solihull, and others not reaching even 70% - including Derby, Leicester, Norfolk and Nottingham. Additionally, children who do not meet the national standard in year 1 retake the check at the end of year 2 and in 2014, 12% of pupils had still not met the expected standard of decoding by the end of year 2 - 71,000 children.

In 2015, that national average figure for children reaching, or exceeding, the benchmark in the Year One Phonics Screening Check (most children aged 6) was 77%. 753 schools, however, achieved 95% to 100% reaching or exceeding the benchmark. Anecdotally, children in high-achieving schools often read nearly all the 40 words correctly (or plausibly for the pseudo-words).

It has been recognised in England, however, that schools achieving a figure of 70% or less, amounts to 9+ children out of a class of 30 not able to decode well enough as yet and this is far too high a figure. Consequently, at the beginning of 2016, the Department for Education has invested further funds in raising awareness about the importance of rigorous, high-quality phonics provision in Reception (4 to 5 year olds) and Year One ( 5 to 6 year olds) by supporting 10 DfE Phonics Roadshows in regions with lower figures.

Nick Gibb is leading the way in recognising the importance of Systematic Synthetic Phonics provision in our infants schools. Ministers in other English-speaking contexts would do well to note England's year on year drive to improve reading instruction.

This drive needs to be continuous and relentless because the aim should be for ALL schools to reach figures of 95% to 100% of their pupils sailing through the phonics check.

Further, those children who, for whatever reason, do not successfully decode the 32 out of 40 words continue with targeted support and re-take the phonics check at the end of their Year Two. Currently in England, there are also trials for Year Three children to re-take the check.

There is no notion that 'some children need something different from phonics' - it is understood by Nick Gibb that ALL children need alphabetic code knowledge and the phonics skills of decoding and encoding even though all children may not learn as quickly (or be taught as effectively).

[In Nick Gibb's speech, it is good to see recognition of Gordon Askew's role in supporting the Department for Education in moving England forwards with Systematic Synthetic Phonics teaching. Gordon Askew is a committee member of IFERI.]

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

The comment below made by Molly de Lemos via the DDOLL network reflects the view of IFERI:

Unfortunately we don't have a Nick Gibb in Australia, although I think that there is now a move to try to push the idea of a phonics check in Australia further.

My view is that this is the one single thing that could have a big impact on how reading is taught in Australia.

If one can demonstrate that a high proportion of Australian children are not achieving well on this test by the end of the first or second year of schooling, as well as wide variations in performance according to the type of reading instruction that they are receiving, this will put pressure on schools to teach reading more effectively.

The UK data that shows that schools even in low socio-economic areas with a high proportion of children from NES backgrounds can achieve at a high level on this test, even as compared with children in more advantaged areas, demonstrates what can be achieved with effective teaching. It is, as you say, a matter of professional accountability to monitor performance in this way.

However there seems to me to be a problem in that governments are receiving mixed messages from different groups, particularly in terms of introducing early screening to identify 'at risk' children. Surely screening of children on entry to school will be a wasted effort if the problems with both initial teaching of reading and effective intervention for those with difficulties are not resolved.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Oh my goodness! Is this a step in the right direction?

See this short piece in 'The Australian' [my emphasis in red below]:

Reading tests for Year 1, but no exam

Six-year-olds won't find themselves facing exams to test their reading and maths skills any time soon.

Instead, the federal government describes its plans to identify struggling students as "gentle" assessments.

As part of conditions attached to a $1.2 billion boost to school funding, the commonwealth wants states to test the literacy and numeracy skills of all Year 1 students.

The government wants to make sure those who are falling behind are identified as early as possible and given the help they need to catch up.

The assessments will be based on what happens in the UK.

"We're not talking about a test - these are little kids," Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told reporters in Sydney on Sunday.

"But what it is is to ensure that we know at the earliest stage who's behind where they should be. Then the teachers can make sure that the kids that are behind can be caught up."

Teachers will sit down with each student and use a standard process to show their reading capacity, their understanding and awareness of phonetics, and how they interpret letters, sounds and characters.

"This is about a personalised, gentle, individual assessment of those students," Education Minister Simon Birmingham said.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Huge congratulations to Dr Jennifer Buckingham and to Simon Birmingham! Here is another piece explaining why (Oh - I'm having such a great day!)

I have to copy this in full as it is worthy of celebration - we need to mark this development! [My emphasis in red below]

Simon Birmingham's 'excellent proposal': a phonics test for year 1 students

by Jennifer Buckingham

1st May 2016

http://www.afr.com/leadership/innovatio ... 501-goj8ps

In a surprise move, Education Minister Simon Birmingham released some of the detail of the schools' budget on Sunday, two days ahead of the rest of the federal budget. Funding to schools will increase annually in line with the rates legislated in the Australian Education Act – 3.56 per cent a year. As predicted, this replaces the much lower consumer price index rate that was in previous budget statements but is a fraction of what Labor is offering.

Citing evidence that previous large funding increases to schools have not translated into improved education outcomes, the government has proposed a range of funding conditions that zero in on policies likely to have the largest impact for the lowest cost.

Reading instruction is one of those policies. Among the strongest findings in education research is that children who have explicit instruction in phonics – how to decode words using letter-sound relationships – are more likely to become successful early readers. One in four year 4 children do not achieve international literacy benchmarks, which reading specialists say is because many schools do not use effective, evidence-based reading instruction, including explicit teaching of phonics.

The federal government has included an early phonics check in its list of funding conditions. This is an excellent proposal. A phonics screening check for all year 1 students was introduced in Britain in 2012 after the Rose review of the teaching of early reading in 2006 recommended the implementation of one particular method of phonics instruction – synthetic phonics – in all schools.

RECOMMENDATION IGNORED

Unlike a similar recommendation in the Australian national inquiry into teaching literacy in 2005, which was widely ignored, synthetic phonics was gradually introduced to all British primary schools from 2007. The phonics screening check reveals which schools are doing this well. A recent review found the test costs about £10 ($19) per student to administer.

Last week, the London School of Economics published a study showing that children in schools where teachers had been trained in synthetic phonics had higher outcomes after one year at school and two years later. The benefits were greatest and most enduring for students from disadvantaged and non-English speaking homes. The report states that cost of the phonics teaching policy was 'very modest' and 'contributes to closing gaps based on disadvantage and (initial) language proficiency by family background'.

An early phonics check in Australian schools would provide objective information about which schools are teaching phonics well and which are not. Children cannot achieve a high score if they do not know how to decode. The answers cannot be guessed by looking at pictures.

EARLY INTERVENTION

It would indicate to parents and teachers which students are struggling with this aspect of reading and need early intervention. Our first standardised reading test is part of the year 3 national assessment plan for literacy and numeracy (NAPLAN). Year 3 is arguably the youngest age at which many children will have the attention and capacity to take a pen-and-paper (soon to be computer-based) test. However, it is possible to assess younger children's reading using short oral reading tests, such as the UK phonics screening check.

The ultimate goal is to become literate in the broader sense and to hopefully enjoy reading. But children cannot read for enjoyment if they cannot read. A solid grasp of the code of written language is a necessary step to achieving that goal for all children.

In Britain the phonics screening check followed the introduction of synthetic phonics to all schools. This is not the situation in Australia, so it may be more a case of what gets tested will get taught. Schools that are already teaching phonics well will surely welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their success.

Dr Jennifer Buckingham is a research fellow and director of the FIVE from FIVE reading project at The Centre for Independent Studies. http://www.fivefromfive.org.au

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

As it's a hot topic of the day, Professor Dorothy Bishop has tweeted a link to revisit one of her historic blog postings on the theme of England's Year One Phonics Screening Check:

http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/ ... creen.html

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Renowned blogger, Greg Ashman, urges 'Labor' in Australia to respond positively to the proposal for a phonics check:

How should Labor respond to the Australian government’s education proposals?

https://gregashman.wordpress.com/2016/0 ... proposals/

In truth, it is perfectly possible to massively increase funding to an education system without improving outcomes or whilst outcomes actually decline. I lived through a huge injection of funds into the English education system, an investment with little to show for it. This is because educationalists have broken theories about education and, when given the cash, they spend it on these notions.

For instance, we still have far too many children in this country suffering through mediocre ‘balanced literacy’ programmes in which explicit phonics is downplayed in favour of platitudes about ‘reading for meaning’. Yes, there are those who would dispute this, claiming that phonics is taught but how can this be the case if primary school teachers themselves lack the knowledge to do so? And if they’re so committed to phonics, why do we keep hearing from educationalists that only a small proportion of English words can be decoded this way (citation unknown)?

This state of affairs exists despite Australia’s own 2005 review of the evidence that demonstrated a clear advantage to systematic and explicit phonics programmes and despite repeated exhortations to pay attention to this evidence from all parts of the political spectrum.

This is why Labor should welcome a phonics check. Labor should also welcome the efforts to ensure that all students study a robust mix of courses at Year 12 so that they don’t limit their options too soon in life. The dream has to be a rigorous and academic education for all. That is what Labor is about: breaking down elites and increasing opportunities for everyone.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Oh dear - perhaps not all good news about Simon Birmingham's full proposals when you read the points raised by Greg Ashman via his 'Filling the Pail' blog:

Simon Birmingham to enforce progressive teaching methods

https://gregashman.wordpress.com/2016/0 ... g-methods/

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Clarification is needed regarding differences in the reading instruction guidance in England compared to the UK as a whole.

It is looking like people in other countries are conflating 'England' with the 'United Kingdom' with regard to the education system.

Official Systematic Synthetic Phonics promotion through statutory guidance is specific to England - embodied in the National Curriculum for English, key stages 1 and 2 (2014). This guidance is specifically for England and not for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

In fact, it is quite tragic because the Scottish ‘Clackmannanshire’ research (Johnston and Watson) influenced politicians and resulted in support for promoting Systematic Synthetic Phonics in England, and Scotland some years ago, but now in Scotland, an influential academic, Sue Ellis - and others - appear to be undermining the phonics message such that it is looking like Scotland appears to have gone ‘backwards’ in its promotion of SSP''.

IFERI's committee member, Anne Glennie, is working particularly hard in Scotland, her home country, to draw attention to this tragic state of affairs. Anne is an experienced teacher-trainer and consultant in the field of literacy and she can testify that many teachers in Scotland are simply not knowledgeable nor trained in the Systematic Synthetic Phonics Teaching Principles.

IFERI suggests that teachers, politicians and parents in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales would be better-informed about the effectiveness of the reading instruction if England's Year One Phonics Screening Check was utilised in their countries.