Sunday, June 29, 2014

The tip of the iceberg

The recent Ofsted report ‘How a sample of primary schools in Stoke-on-Trent teach pupils to read’ makes shocking reading. It is a small sample of only twelve primary schools (out of 77) in Stoke-on-Trent and yet the report declares that in seven out of that twelve, ‘reading was not taught well enough’ and that six of the schools ‘were not well prepared for the requirements of the new national curriculum’. Moreover, it estimates that ‘over 7,000 children go to a school that is judged inadequate or as requires improvement’.

So, the first question that springs immediately to mind is: if that’s what nearly sixty per cent of the schools are like in a small sample, what is happening in the other 65 primary schools in Stoke-on-Trent? 
Can you see the tear in old Josiah's eye?

About the only positive thing the report has to say is that, in the five schools where children were being taught adequately, children were getting off to ‘a flying start in the Early Years Foundations Stage’. What this means is that these children have begun to establish a solid base on which, with good tuition, their abilities to read and write can be further developed. Which is more than can be said for their 7,000 peers!

According to the report, not all schools were teaching phonics decoding and, astonishingly, three head teachers were described as being unaware that this is a requirement of the new national curriculum. It hardly seems surprising then that teachers in the failing schools were not, as the report laments, linking early reading and writing – a clear indication that they don’t understand the reversibility of the code and almost certainly don’t know how the sounds of the language relate to the way the spelling system works.

Worse still, there is every indication that what phonics teaching was in place in Key Stage 1 disappears entirely in Key Stage 2, precisely the time during which pupils are introduced to more complex spellings of sounds. Many of these more complex spellings can be taught in the context of the everyday curriculum if, and only if, the all the basics have been put in place in Key Stage 1. Key Stage 2 is also the time in which children’s ability to read and spell polysyllabic words, a process which should already have begun in Key Stage 1, can now be further developed to include much longer, five and six syllable words (for example, 'biodegradable', 'choreography', etc.).

What this means for those Key Stage 2 pupils who have been so badly served is that as the challenges become greater – words get longer, more abstract, less frequently encountered, are less likely to heard in spoken language – they will struggle more and more to keep up, fall further and further behind and, by the end of the primary phase, they will be unable to meet the demands of a secondary curriculum.

Unless reading and spelling/writing are taught to such a level of proficiency that they become automatic, the cognitive load imposed by learning something (knowledge/other skills) new while still struggling to read it or write about it becomes an insurmountable handicap. This is why the procedures for learning word recognition need to be overlearned through carefully structured practice at Key Stage 1 because, if they are not, trying to learn two unrelated things simultaneously is almost impossible to do. This is why it is so vital for all pupils to learn to read and write fluently so that their conscious attention can focus on learning all the other things we deem to be important in our culture.
The report also noted in more detail some truly egregious examples of poor teaching:
  • ‘Almost all schools in the survey did not teach phonics as “the route to decode words”...’ Although teachers were said to be ‘positive’ about teaching phonics, they were mixing it up with other ‘cues’. As Dr Bonnie Macmillan makes clear in her book Why Schoolchildren Can’t Read, a book every bit as relevant in 2014 as it was when it was published in 1997, 'mixed methods' is in reality a whole word approach. Using ORT readers, such as the Go-Kart, as mentioned in the report, relying on picture cues, relying on initial sounds and guessing the rest of the word, are methods that ‘do not support early reading development, where acquisition of the alphabetic principle is key’ (Macmillan, B.).
  • Even more startling and disturbing was the fact that in the early years environments within the schools inspected there was very little evidence of children learning and rehearsing a wide range of stories, rhymes and songs’.  I’m not especially surprised that phonics is not being taught well but, really, that young children are not being offered a wide range of stories, rhymes and songs seems particularly bad. What an insipid diet these children must be being fed!

When children, especially those from deprived backgrounds, are not being inducted into a broader, deeper stratum of the culture through the medium of fictional and informational texts and through a wide range of oral genres, and, on top of that, they are not being taught to read and write to automaticity, they are almost certain to founder on the rocks of greater complexity as they pass further on up the school system.

More than most areas of Britain, the six towns and Newcastle-under-Lyme have suffered dreadfully from the disappearance of almost all of the traditional industries. Now, more than at any time, it is absolutely vital for children in schools in the Potteriess to get the very best teaching in reading, writing and basic mathematics so that they can go on to develop whatever potential they have and go on to find employment.

I don’t blame the classroom teachers in the schools concerned. What they need is training. Most institutions of initial teacher training do not train teachers in how to teach reading and spelling with anything like the rigour required when this, above all else, is the basis for all future learning.

Teaching children to become literate is very much more complex than many people outside the profession think, especially those who found learning the skill very easy when they were children. It is a highly specialised skill and it needs proper, thorough training if teachers are to do it well. It can’t be done in a twilight session after school and it can’t be done in a single day. To teach an understanding of how the sounds of the language relate to the spelling system, as well as the skills needed to teach it, requires expertise: expertise that all teachers need to acquire.

Although the present government did recognise the massive tail of underachievement in this area of teaching, where they blundered very badly was in providing primary schools with matched funding that could be spent on resources or training. Needless to say, hardly any spent their money on training, with the result that things have barely changed.

So, what’s the message? Train the teachers!

Monday, June 16, 2014

Stepping stones to beginning reading

This post has been written in response to a number of questions I’ve been asked or come across (especially on Mumsnet) asking what parents can do to prepare their children for learning to read and spell. The advice below is derived from my own experience in teaching my youngest daughter and my grandchildren, as well as from the advice I’ve given to friends and colleagues who've wanted to get their children off to a good start. 

Some years ago when my youngest daughter was about two-and-a-half, I began playing games with sounds with her. It started as a family game around the table at meal times. As an example, I would tell a simple story and instead of saying all the words as whole words, I’d segment the words into their constituent sounds and say to our daughter’s mum, "I wonder what that word is?" She, of course, would pretend to think about this before coming out with the word. So, it would have gone like this:
Me: “One day a big, brown /f/  /o/  /k/s/ crept into the farmyard. What’s a /f/  /o/  /k/s/, Mummy?”
Mummy: “Errrm. It’s a ....fox!”
And the game would continue in that vein until, after a relatively short period of time, our daughter caught on and would delight herself by ‘getting’ the word before me or her mother.
We then quickly progressed to other simple games. I-Spy was very popular. Either one of us would say something like, “I-Spy with my little eye something in the kitchen with the sounds /m/ /u/ /g/.” And our daughter would, quick as a flash, say ‘mug’.
By the time she was three, she could put together the sounds of virtually anything and say what the word was. So, we progressed from CVC words, through CVCC (lamp), CCVC (flag), CCVCC (swift) to two-syllable words – usually the names of shops, such as /t/ /e/ /s/ /k/ /oe/ /z/ (Tesco’s). As a matter of fact, when I was collecting her from nursery one day, I said to her that we were going to go to /t/ /e/ /s/ /k/ /oe/ /z/ and the nursery nurse was astonished she was able to say Tesco's.
Shortly after she turned three, we began to play similar games with segmenting sounds in words. Again, these began with simple CVC words and quickly, from a structural point of view, got more complex. At the time, I was teaching some Japanese students and picking up everyday words in Japanese. When I was at home, I would sometimes use these words as nonsense words and ask our daughter to tell me the sounds in them. Amazingly, after very little practice, she was better – in that she was faster and more accurate –  than I was!
Why did we do this? The answer is that, babies, even when still in the womb in the last trimester of pregnancy, are sensitive to the sounds of their L1 (mother tongue). This sensitivity persists until young children are speaking in whole words, when the attention to this kind of fine detail drops below the level of conscious attention, as it quickly does. However, attention to this kind of detail is once again required when children begin to learn to read so, as a kind of bridging exercise or a stepping stone, we played games like this to facilitate the skills of blending and segmenting.
All of this was done without ever looking at any letters! In fact, we didn’t want to start teaching our daughter to read until she was four. This is because we think there’s lots of interesting language work one can do which will also provide a solid base from which to begin teaching reading and writing later. For example, we read and told lots and lots of stories, as well as informational texts. We spent huge amounts of time talking and listening and learning simple poems and songs by heart. Then there was the drawing, sticking, painting and other such activities which are terrific fun and help to promote good fine-motor control skills.
The other reason we didn't want to start linking spelling to sounds was that, until children reach the age of about four – and clearly some children show willingness earlier and some children later – they often find it difficult to connect sounds to spellings. Remembering the differences between the abstract squiggles on the page and linking them to the sounds of the language can be quite challenging for children at this age. For that reason and as there are many other interesting things to do in the meantime, our advice is to wait until the child is four. [Interestingly, in the Spanish school to which we sent our daughter in what would have been her reception year, they didn’t teach reading or writing at all. The time was spent teaching children to swim, dance, paint, eat at table properly, to socialise and so on. This is because Spanish is so much easier (less complex) to teach than English and teachers are more relaxed about when to begin!]
All of the above (and more!) are absolutely essential to providing the language skills necessary for beginning reading and writing and anyone wanting to learn more will probably enjoy reading Diane McGuinness’s superb Growing a Reader from Birth, which provides an excellent background to the subject.
If you choose to follow the trajectory of this advice, here are some tips:
  • Say sounds as precisely as you can: say /s/ and not ‘suh’, thus adding an extra sound.
  • Use words for blending that begin with continuants or sounds that can easily be extended. These are /f/, /h/, /l/, /m/, /n/ /r/, /s/, /v/, /w/, /z/. The vowel sounds can also be extended. Extending sounds in the beginning greatly helps children to hear them. If you say the sounds /s/ /i/ /t/ and you extend the /s/ and the /i/, you can hear the word ‘sit’.
  • Begin with CVC words and give plenty of practice before moving on to CVCC, CCVC and CCVCC words, also remembering to keep using continuants at first – /s/ /l/ /a/ /m/.
  • As this game is being conducted orally/aurally, you can use words like ‘church’, ‘ship’, ‘gate’, ‘feet’, and so on, because they are all CVC words. Again, complexity can be built in by adding adjacent consonants – ‘crash’, ‘sleep’, etc.
  • Keep it light and make it fun! Stop when the child has clearly had enough.
  • If the child can't do what has been suggested straight away, discontinue and wait a few months more before trying again.
  • Don't expect the child to 'catch on' to the game immediately. It often takes time for them to learn how to play.
This post should be seen as a companion piece to this.
Thanks to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stepping_stones,_Hebden,_bench.jpg for the pic.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Why can't children read... Dickens?

This post arose out of a tweet I read this morning which said that ‘a friend had to read the first page of Oliver Twist aloud to university students because it was too difficult for them’. Thinking back to the time I was teaching literature courses at university, I also found that my students in one of them (I mention no names!) had considerable difficulty in reading complex novels (Rushdie, Naipaul, Jean Rhys) and the theoretical texts which went with the course. How did I know? They openly admitted as much. 

That should, if you think about it, give us a clue as to why there is this persistent problem in getting children to read canonical works: it extends right back to the first years of schooling. Children need to be taught to read and spell to a very high degree of proficiency by the end of Key Stage 1. When this is done well, children get off to a good start: reading is something they derive pleasure from and have success with. If this happens and well trained teachers in Key Stage 2 continue to fine-tune reading and spelling skills by teaching many of the less frequent, more obscure sound-spelling correspondences and they teach their pupils to read and spell ever longer polysyllabic words, with practice, children find that reading becomes more and more fluent. This is important because they are now at the stage of reading to learn and fluency guarantees direct access to meaning on the page. In fact, reading should become so fluent that, unless a particular word contains a less frequent sound-spelling correspondence or is not in the reader’s spoken vocabulary, the process of decoding slips beneath the level of conscious attention.

Interestingly, Jeanne Chall, an expert in ‘readability’, demonstrated that during the period 1920-1960, when sight-word and meaning-based approaches were more common, ‘the number of different words in primary reading textbooks decreased substantially...In contrast, from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, a time when decoding-based methods were more popular, the number of different words in primary reading books increased’*!

That isn’t to say that there aren’t other factors at work. As suggested above, vocabulary difficulty is also likely to be a strong and consistent factor in predicting text difficulty. Vocabulary difficulty is measured in two ways: the first is one of the frequency of words in print; the second, by the number of ‘new’ and/or ‘difficult’ words introduced in a text and how often they are repeated. Beyond that, syntactic features such as the length of sentences, cohesion and the complexity of sentences - the presence or absence of embedded clauses and prepositional phrases - are also aspects for consideration.

Some would argue that the proliferation of readability formulas have been responsible for the long-standing and steady reduction in text difficulty. This has been because publishing houses measured readability and deliberately reduced the level of text difficulty. Chall et al (1977) discovered that, between the 1940s and 1970s, ‘social studies, literature,  grammar and composition textbooks’ had all diminished in ‘difficulty on measures such as readability scores, maturity level, question complexity, and ratio of illustrations to text’*. By contrast, one rarely hears either primary or secondary teachers talk about readability, with most secondary teachers almost exclusively preoccupied with filleting everything for meaning.

Scores can tell us how difficult a text is but not how difficult a text should be. The most common way of establishing text difficulty is a test of reading comprehension. If a pupil can answer successfully a series of multiple-choice questions on the main ideas being conveyed, on some of the detail in the text and on inference, the match is thought to be optimal. 75% success is the score required by Bormuth (1975); Thorndike (1916) put it at 80%. I wonder how many teachers still use regular comprehension quizzes.

Going back to Dickens, on the Flesch-Kincaid readability formula, for which a higher score indicates easier readability and on which scores usually range from 0 to 100, the first paragraph of Dickens’s Oliver Twist scored -10! Such a text would then be regarded as being very difficult to read. [God knows what Bleak House would score!] Using Readability-Score.com, a random paragraph taken from Philip Pullman’s The Tiger in the Well scored 88.5 on the Flesch-Kincaid, and at an average grade level of 4.5 in the USA (UK Year 5). Stormbreaker by Anthony Horowitz scored 82.9 on the Flesch-Kincaid and at an average grade level of 6.1 (UK Year 7). An excerpt from The Hunger Games scored 77.3 on the Flesch-Kincaid readability formula and at an average grade level of 7.2 (UK Year 8). And, you might be interested to know that Of Mice and Men scored 82.5 on the Flesch-Kincaid index and at an average grade level of 7 (UK Year 8). As is obvious, a fairly accomplished reader will hardly break sweat reading any of the more contemporary works.

Going on my own experience, most modern teenagers who do read for pleasure seem to read books that rarely progress beyond the Year 8/Year 9 level of readability. Oh yes! they love them and gobble them up. One of my own daughters read three John Green (The Fault in Our Stars) books in a matter of days and it was a delight to see her so engrossed. But, if they stick at this point, they arrest! Is it then any wonder why, when confronted by novels written in the nineteenth century or even those written in the first half of the twentieth century, they find them so daunting as not to even try and tackle them?

If you run through a readability calculator many of the kinds of books those teenagers that do read are reading, you will find what Jeanne Chall found: the further forward in time you go, the easier children’s novels and textbooks are to read. So, what’s the answer? It's very sad to have to say this but if pupils are already years behind their chronological ages by the time they enter secondary school, it’s probably too late, given the lack of expertise in and commitment to teaching pupils to read in many secondary schools. However, even pupils already doing well need pushing to make continual improvements in performance. Too often the velleities of secondary school expectation are to blame. Thus, all children entering secondary school should be screened for reading and teachers in every subject made aware of their pupils' abilities and made responsible for developing them. Textbooks of all kinds should be made progressively more challenging in terms of content, vocabulary and sentence complexity. Otherwise fewer and fewer children will be able to read a wide and challenging range of imaginative and informational texts.

* Quotations are taken from Chall, J. &Conard, S.S, Should Textbooks Challenge Students: The case for Easier or Harder Textbooks, (1991)

Friday, May 16, 2014

How valid is the phonics screening 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, [i]deological thinking is not easily swayed by factual evidence’*.
The authors also agree with previous studies in concurring that ‘a rigorous assessment of phonics skill is important for early identification of children at risk of reading difficulties’, which they define here as ‘not yet attaining the phonics phase expected by the end of Year1 (i.e., not attaining phase 5)’.
An unexpected boon from the study was that there was ‘a slight tendency to overestimate the prevalence of at-risk readers (as compared with standardised tests of reading accuracy and fluency)’, which the authors, in my view rightly, contend to be ‘a favourable property for a screening instrument’.
Where the authors are more equivocal is around the issue of whether the check is necessary. Although they conclude that it is valid, they also suggest that, where teachers are well trained ‘in the teaching and assessment of phonics, their judgements are sufficient for the purpose’. They go further and add that ‘the use of resources to better equip teachers to conduct ongoing phonic assessments would be more cost-effective, not least because this would place them in the best position to intervene before reading difficulties set in’.
Although it is hard to disagree with the proposition that there wouldn’t be a need for a screening check if teachers were sufficiently well trained to monitor and assess children’s abilities and capabilities in regard to their phonics knowledge and understanding, the authors seem to be ignoring a number of important findings. As Jeanne Chall revealed in her seminal book Learning to Read: The Great Debate (1967), teachers have a strong tendency to be eclectic. They find it very difficult to abandon previous approaches, many elements of which can often be seen to run counter to the principles of a new programme. Neither do they easily relinquish their old pedagogical ideologies unless given training that provides a clear rational for what it is they do and the way in which they do it.
More recently, the NFER report ‘Phonics screening check evaluation: Research report’ (May 2014) bore this out. ‘Even amongst those who are strongly supportive of phonics,’ it reported that there ‘was a firm conviction that other strategies were of equal value and that phonics as a method of teaching reading was most successful when used in conjunction with other techniques’.
As was made clear by a number of respondents to the survey carried out by NFER, there is still a huge amount of confusion, particularly around the areas of decoding and comprehending, in the minds of many teachers. Indeed, one percipient teacher remarked, ‘I think the moment you start to use other methods, you aren’t actually doing synthetic phonics’.
Another rather conspicuous omission from the paper was any comment on the match-funding programme initiated by the government and the appalling disclosure that over 90% of allocated funding had been spent by schools on resources (meaning mainly books) and not on training.
Two things: why is it that so few research articles on the teaching of reading spelling ever quote from or comment on the work of Diane McGuinness? And, why is there such a disconnect between the practitioners out there in the field training teaching practitioners (nearly 12,000 alone in the case of Sounds-Write) and academic researchers in our universities? In case you’re listening out there, there is much better stuff out there than the insipid and meagre diet doled out to many children in the form of Letters and Sounds.

* Quoted from Robert Peal's Progressively Worse: The burden of bad ideas in British schools, p.62.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

No non-phonetic words, Shakespeare and St George!

I just got the following comment on my blog posting The English writing system’ (26/04/2014) from Bruce Price, who describes himself as an ‘writer, artist, [and] education activist:
Rudolf Flesch and Denise Eide say that English is 98% phonetic, more or less. They get to this number by conceding every debatable point.
But I think this blog post makes the more profound point that EVERY English word stands for sounds and is therefore phonetic.
I wrote a piece a few years back called "Is English a Phonetic Language? Of course! 100%." (On CanadaFreePress.) I thought this was a better tactical position. If you try to be nice to the Whole Word crew, they'll claim that English is only 20% phonetic.
I try to explain to them that a genuinely non-phonetic word would be something like QG7R pronounced "shuffleboard." Now, THAT is a non-phonetic word. 
But English doesn't have any such words! 

I don’t normally promote comments to full postings but I liked the point Bruce was making so much, I thought it deserved to be more widely read. You can read Bruce's piece here. And well worth the trouble it is too.

I laughed out loud when I read in his posting that someone had actually 'set up a movement to teach Spanish with sight words' and that 'you can this minute find lists on the internet of “English-Spanish Dolch Sight Words.” By this device, kids can be made illiterate in two languages at once'! There's also a lovely rejoinder to those who would campaign to make English spelling 'phonetic'.

So, on St George's Day and the day on which we commonly celebrate Shakespeare's birthday (450, today, by the way), thank you Bruce for getting me at least off to a good start!

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Down with miserablism!

Mike Lloyd-Jones’s new book Phonics and the Resistance to Reading is an absolute cracker!

Without in the least patronising his readership, Mike’s panoptic survey of the teaching of reading takes us back to the beginning of the nineteenth century and all the way to the present day.

His story begins in 1807, where, he says, the roots of the resistance to reading lie. He goes on to deconstruct the myth that there had ever been a time in which phonics was taught well, before bringing us into the twenty-first century, where the reading wars continue unabated.
Phonics and the Resistance to Reading isn’t an academic book in the sense that the reader won’t find a plethora of academic references but be in doubt that Mike knows his stuff and his judicious choice of quotations from such authorities as Keith Stanovich, Daniels and Diack, Joyce Morris and Jim Rose demonstrate in no small measure his familiarity with the subject matter and his in-depth knowledge. He shows what a dismal record whole language, look and say and mixed methods of teaching reading have had and why schools throughout the land should be teaching properly structured synthetic phonics.

And, this is a brave book! Mike doesn’t flinch from taking on the arguments launched by the anti-phonics lobby, sometimes with humour – I’m still chuckling at his withering description of many critics of phonics as having had a ‘syllogism bypass operation’ – sometimes with barely concealed anger at the shattering consequences of their resistance. In fact, he likens the phonics resisters to opposition to the provision of education to the labouring classes of the poor in the nineteenth century. ‘The phonics deniers, the anxiety makers and the phonicsphobics are,’ he asserts, ‘consciously or unconsciously heirs to those distant Jeremiahs who warned against the threat of mass literacy.’

That many of these phonics-deniers are most often from the political left is also puzzling. As Daisy Christodoulou put it recently in her book Seven Myths About Education, ‘[i]t is baffling to think about why people in the modern British Labour movement have assumed the same ideas as ultra-conservatives from nearly two centuries ago’. Indeed!

Mike’s book should be compulsory reading for every single student teacher on every teacher training course and if you are a teacher and sometimes feel stumped for an answer when you hear someone churn out those tired old anti-phonics arguments, Mike’s book will provide you with a well argued, coherent retort.

See also Debbie Hepplewhite’s acclaim for Mike’s book here.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

The death of match-funding

Posting from Perth, Western Australia. 


I thought you might like to know that Pro5, the organisation charged with administering match-funding on behalf of the DfE has just sent us an email to confirm that the initiative has officially been wound up as of 31st March 2014.

They also added the following:
The DfE have provided some key information below, based on an analysis of the match-funding data from September 2011 to the end of October 2013 which showed that: 
  1. A total of £23.7 million match-funding (including VAT) was claimed by around 14,300 schools, 80% of eligible schools.
  2. Approximately 84% of eligible schools with key stage 1 pupils claimed match-funding (around 13,900 schools).
  3. Around 1,260 schools with key stage 2 pupils became eligible for match-funding from January 2013. Of these around 390 claimed match-funding (31%).
  4. Most of the funding (95%) was used to purchase phonics products rather than training.
 We would like to thank you all for your support and hard work from the start of the process in 2011 to date and for making the initiative a success. We would appreciate any feedback (good, bad or indifferent) that you have about the initiative including the procurement and the operational management of the contracts.  Please reply by return by Tuesday 22nd April.
 As you can see, Pro5 hail the initiative as a ‘success’. I don’t! Although I’ve always thought it essential for schools to support the development of pupils’ reading skills through the medium of phonics books and other materials, I've also consistently made the point that it was a huge mistake not to place the emphasis on training. As I have always argued on this blog (here and here), most education officials at government and local authority level, heads and senior management team staff have never really understood the need for a thorough and intensive training in the why and how to teach phonics.

Nick Gibb could have steered the enterprise towards training had he understood more clearly what the problem is and how it needs to be dealt with. He was much too timid and too willing to be guided by his counsels in the DfE and others. as a result, he missed a fine opportunity to make the kind of difference Michael Gove has recently been speaking about: the chance to eradicate the blight of illiteracy within a lifetime. A different approach would have privileged the introduction of RCTs to find out which phonics programmes are likely to yield the most promising results and fund training on the back of the outcomes.

As it is, although those schools that have spent their funding on Dandelion Readers or Sounds-Write readers will find that that their understanding of phonics teaching has been enhanced, the crucial first step should have been training.