I spent quite a long time providing a written commentary of this Ofsted (England's inspectorate) report on some schools in Stoke-on-Trent - pointing out the author's style of calling upon the bigger picture of 'statistics' and contrasting their cold, hard facts with the minutiae of findings from observations of individual children's practices in the schools themselves.
In England, the Government is constantly criticised for promoting Systematic Synthetic Phonics at the expense of higher-order language and literature (and 'the love of books') but I think this is unfair when you look at the reality of official guidance.
This might be of interest to people in England and to people in other English-speaking countries to note the point we've reached in England regarding evidence-based reading instruction:
Analysis of the report: How a sample of primary schools in Stoke-on-Trent teach pupils to read :
http://www.phonicsinternational.com/for ... okeontrent
Ofsted Stoke-on-Trent report - analysis of its contents
-
Debbie_Hepplewhite
- Posts: 2500
- Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm
-
Dick Schutz
Re: Ofsted Stoke-on-Trent report - analysis of its contents
The report confirms that the "action" in reading instruction is at the school and class level. Unfortunately, the report does not tie the "anecdotes" to the "statistics."
That is, the "statistics" compare the LEA performance with regional and national performance, while the "anecdotes" are classified only as "good or bad." We assume that the "good practices" were in high performing schools and the "bad practices" were in low performing schools. The 13 "bad" anecdotes are unquestionably bad. The 6 "good practices" are good, but they aren't all that good.
The LEA did not benefit much from the "Matched Funding." There is no indication that any of the schools took advantage of the "training" opportunity. And the "materials" chosen by the 6 of the 12 schools were a mixed bag at best.
If the LEA or the schools paid any attention to the report, it is not reflected in their 2015 PSC results. The LEA moved from 71% pass in 2014 to 76% pass in 2015, still below the 77% national rate and the 78% regional rate.
It's unfortunate that this was a "one shot" study. My guess is that the results reported are "pretty typical," but there was no cross-checking in 2014 or any follow-up in 2015, so there is no confirmation of generalizability.
"Evidence-based" schooling still has a way to go. It's "research age" in the UK is higher than in other countries, but the Natural Experiment data yielded by the PSC have yet to be analyzed.
That is, the "statistics" compare the LEA performance with regional and national performance, while the "anecdotes" are classified only as "good or bad." We assume that the "good practices" were in high performing schools and the "bad practices" were in low performing schools. The 13 "bad" anecdotes are unquestionably bad. The 6 "good practices" are good, but they aren't all that good.
The LEA did not benefit much from the "Matched Funding." There is no indication that any of the schools took advantage of the "training" opportunity. And the "materials" chosen by the 6 of the 12 schools were a mixed bag at best.
If the LEA or the schools paid any attention to the report, it is not reflected in their 2015 PSC results. The LEA moved from 71% pass in 2014 to 76% pass in 2015, still below the 77% national rate and the 78% regional rate.
It's unfortunate that this was a "one shot" study. My guess is that the results reported are "pretty typical," but there was no cross-checking in 2014 or any follow-up in 2015, so there is no confirmation of generalizability.
"Evidence-based" schooling still has a way to go. It's "research age" in the UK is higher than in other countries, but the Natural Experiment data yielded by the PSC have yet to be analyzed.
-
Debbie_Hepplewhite
- Posts: 2500
- Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm
Re: Ofsted Stoke-on-Trent report - analysis of its contents
I have a feeling, Dick, that England could get 'stuck' around the 80% pass rate in the Year One Phonics Screening Check - which raises questions about the 20%, therefore, that might not reach the suggested benchmark which, to date, has been 32 out of the 40 words in the check read correctly (or 'plausibly' in the case of the pseudowords).
Bear in mind that in over 700 schools, 95% to 100% of the children in Year One reached or exceeded the benchmark - so can all the schools achieve this kind of level?
I suggest so.
Whilst Sir Michael Wilshaw comments about phonics activities which appropriately 'engage' the children, this does not give a clear enough indication of what these might be - and the difference between 'core' activities and content and somewhat 'extraneous' activities (as Sir Jim Rose warned about in his historical Rose Report).
You are right to mention the 'training' aspect of teachers - although training in many cases isn't necessarily as content-rich or rigorous as it arguably needs to be!
Nevertheless, I think that you are right to give England credit for advances to date and attempts to be guided by the research on reading.
Bear in mind that in over 700 schools, 95% to 100% of the children in Year One reached or exceeded the benchmark - so can all the schools achieve this kind of level?
I suggest so.
Whilst Sir Michael Wilshaw comments about phonics activities which appropriately 'engage' the children, this does not give a clear enough indication of what these might be - and the difference between 'core' activities and content and somewhat 'extraneous' activities (as Sir Jim Rose warned about in his historical Rose Report).
You are right to mention the 'training' aspect of teachers - although training in many cases isn't necessarily as content-rich or rigorous as it arguably needs to be!
Nevertheless, I think that you are right to give England credit for advances to date and attempts to be guided by the research on reading.