3. Synthetic phonics (from the word synthesis meaning 'to blend') / *Linguistic Phonics / 'High Quality Phonics' (Rose Report 2006)

Modern, UK-style synthetic phonics is no fad or fleeting fashion. All the available scientific research shows that it is the best method to teach students of all ages how to read and spell. Programmes which accurately follow the synthetic/linguistic phonic principles teach students the Alphabet Code systematically and explicitly. The alphabet code is the reversible relationship between the phonemes (the smallest discernible sounds in spoken words) and the graphemes. The English alphabet code consists of the approximately *44 phonemes that we use when we are speaking English and the ways these sounds are represented in our writing using spellings / graphemes consisting of 1-4 letters consecutively or 2 vowel letters 'split' e.g. fry, pie, knight, height, lime, *The number of sounds varies between languages; for example, Rotokus, spoken in the Pacific Islands, has 11, Italian has 25 and the South African !Xu language has 141 sounds.

Cognitive-developmental psychologist, Diane McGuinness, discovered the 4 'characteristics' (levels of complexity) of the English alphabet code. These levels determine the order in which the grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) should be taught to ensure their fast and easy assimilation. (D.McGuinness.2011 RRF conference)
1. A phoneme can be spelled using one letter: c-a-t / d-o-g / s-w-i-m
2. A phoneme can be spelled using 2 to 4 letters: h-i-ll / sh-i-p / l-ear-n / d-augh-t-er
3. A phoneme can be spelled in multiple ways: d-ay / t-r-ai-n / l-a-k-e / b-r-ea-k / s-t-r-aigh-t
4. A spelling can represent more than one phoneme: g-r-ea-t / c-l-ea-n / b-r-ea-d

A 'transparent' Simple / Basic Alphabetic Code, which is generally the most common spelling for each sound (see example below), is taught first directly and discretely i.e. there is no assumption that it will be discovered 'embedded' during the reading of whole language texts. As early reading expert, Ruth Miskin says, 'It is important to make learning to read as simple as possible. This means pretending, just for a little while, that learning to read English is as easy as learning to read Spanish' (Miskin SEN magazine 47.p29). This brilliant device of having, temporarily, an artificially transparent alphabet code (but unmodified orthography, unlike the 1960's initial teaching alphabet: i.t.a) helps to level the playing field between those who are learning to read and write in English and the majority of their counterparts on the European continent.

As soon as the first 3-4 grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) of the simple/basic code have been taught, children are shown how to sound out and blend the individual GPCs from left to right all-through-the-written-word for reading and to fetch the letter-sound correspondences from memory for spelling, segmenting all-through-the-spoken-word. Spelling is integral to all UK-style synthetic phonics programmes from the beginning, to make clear the reversibility of the code. 'Tricky words' (high frequency words with unusual or unique GPCs) are drip-fed into lessons systematically and taught using a phonic approach, not as whole shapes. Lessons are cumulative with each lesson building on the one before it.

Typical synthetic phonics Simple Code GPC teaching progression (Jolly Phonics)
1. s a t i p n
2. c k e h r m d
3. g o u l f b
4. ai j oa ie ee or
5. z w ng v oo oo
6. y x ch sh th th
7. qu ou oi ue er ar

Multi-sensory mnemonics are used, initially, to help young children remember the letter-sound correspondences of the basic code. At each step, children are provided with plenty of decodable reading material to practise sounding out and blending; first single words, then short sentences, moving rapidly on to decodable books. Decodable books only contain words that can be sounded out based on what the student has already been taught, so no guessing or memorising is necessary. Once children are secure and confident reading and spelling words using the Basic Code GPCs then the common spellings of the Complex/Advanced Alphabet Code are carefully introduced.

Genuine, synthetic phonics programmes do NOT include any whole language elements i.e. teach a range of strategies for predicting (guessing) words using picture, context and initial letter clues, global sight-word memorisation, or teach sound units larger than the phoneme. Letter names are usually taught late in the programme; letter names, key words and characters can act as a form of 'noise' impeding the direct association of sound to letter/s and vice versa. Exemplar commercial programmes include Jolly Phonics, Phonics International and Read Write Inc..

All *linguistic phonics programmes are based on the research and prototype of Professor Diane McGuinness. She analysed the probability structure of the English spelling code and discovered that, 'Of the 350-400 spellings only 176 are common, and these spellings account for around 90% of the words in print' (D.McGuinness.Allographs1 p2) These programmes are closely related to modern synthetic phonics programmes as they also teach the GPCs of the Alphabet Code directly and explicitly, working from simple to complex, and spelling is integral from the start. As with synthetic phonics, letter names are delayed, all whole language elements are shunned and they work with phonemes only, not larger units of sound such as onsets and rimes. There are some differences though; they don't use any mnemonics, special terms such as *silent letter / *short/long vowels, or any spelling / syllable 'rules'. The GPCs are taught in the context of real words as, 'Comparing the spellings in context [of real words] increases the brain's ability to analyse and therefore remember'' (Nevola.SRS Handbook p113).

In linguistic phonics programmes, when the complex code is taught, several of the most common spellings for a sound are introduced at the same time, rather than individually, with the less common spellings introduced together at a later stage; multiple spellings are introduced simultaneously to enable the learner to internalise them and ''create a mental 'filing cabinet of sound' (Nevola.SRS Handbook p113) High frequency words with unusual or unique GPCs are introduced systematically during the appropriate lesson/s ensuring a phonics all-through-the word approach, for example <many> and <friend> would be taught alongside words with the common spellings for /e/. Exemplar linguistic phonics programmes include Sounds~Write and the Sound Reading System.

Typical linguistic phonics GPC teaching progression (Sounds~Write)
http://www.sounds-write.co.uk/how-it-works.aspx

http://literacyblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/silent-letters.html
*Silent letters?

*'Children have no idea what the teacher means when she says vowels are 'long' and 'short'. They think she is talking about physical size, a long A and a short A' (D.McGuinness. WCCR. p97)

http://www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID=95&n_issueNumber=49
A prototype for teaching the English Alphabet Code by Professor Diane McGuinness.

See this page for details of synthetic / linguistic phonic programmes available in the UK and abroad.

The word 'alphabet' comes from the names of the first two letters in the Greek alphabet, alpha beta. The Greeks created the first 'sound' alphabet when they added vowel sounds to the Phoenicians' consonants-only alphabet. For the next 2,500 years reading was taught by first teaching the alphabet and then the syllable sounds: ba be bi bo bu, da de di do du, fa fe fi fo fu(m!) ...etc. It wasn't until the 8th century that conventions in writing that we take for granted such as spaces between words and the use of lowercase letters appeared, set in place by the English scholar Alcuin. In 1654 the French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal discovered that it was possible to split the syllable into smaller units - phonemes, and in doing so created synthetic phonics. The use of the word 'synthetic' is not new, possibly appearing sometime back in the 19th century; Pollard's Manual of Synthetic Reading and Spelling was published in 1889. Nellie Dale, a teacher at Wimbledon High School for Girls, created a programme in 1898 that was very similar to today's best synthetic phonic programmes.

Nellie Dale’s Book ‘On the Teaching of English Reading’
www.archive.org/stream/onteachingofengl00daleuoft

Rebecca Pollard's Manual of Synthetic Reading and Spelling
N.B. Pollard's method used diacritic markings, unlike modern synthetic phonics.
http://openlibrary.org/details/acompletemanual00pollgoog

Phoneme awareness (PA: to be consciously aware that words are composed of discrete sounds (phonemes) that are comparable and manipulable) is the subject of much controversy and confusion. Children who fail to acquire sufficient PA 'naturally' alongside conventional (mixed methods) literacy teaching, are deemed to have a constitutional brain weakness; the hallmark of dyslexia. Many 'experts' advocate phonological awareness training (no letter symbols) for all children prior to any teaching of reading, to help overcome this brain 'glitch' that appears to be present in so many. This erroneous thinking has resulted in the insertion of a harmless (but pointless if it is expected to impact on the teach of reading) 'sounds only' stage (Phase One) in the government's programme, Letters & Sounds. '(T)he research conclusively proves there is no benefit to phoneme-only training programmes as opposed to instruction using a good synthetic phonics programme from the outset, one which teaches segmenting and blending using letter symbols and lots of writing practice. Phoneme analysis sufficient to be able to decode is acquired much more rapidly in the context of print than in isolation' (D.McGuinness. Response to Hulme).

Teeny Reading Seeds http://www.phonicsinternational.com/trs.html
Free resources for 3-4 yr.olds as they begin to make links between speech sounds and the 26 alphabet letters - both upper and lower case: can be used with the DfE programme Letters & Sounds Phase One

‘People are attracted to PA for several reasons. Researchers believe it because tests show a correlation between PA performance and later reading performance, But a quick test of vocabulary has equal predictability, and the researchers pay little attention to the nuts and bolts of the later reading instruction. Teachers and other adults are attracted because PA activities are fun and games that give the adult all kinds of latitude and that don't require "books" or any formal instructional materials. Publishers are attracted because PA provides "busy work" for kids until they're old enough for when the adults involved believe the kids are "ready" for the mis-instruction the publishers peddle’ (Prof.Schutz.3RsPlus)

'Scores of developmental studies show that phonemic processing is one of the most “buffered” language skills humans possess, and is least susceptible to disruption and malfunction. Chaney showed that by age three, children are highly sensitive to the phoneme level of speech. Nearly all of the 87 three-year-olds in her study could listen to isolated phonemes (/b/ -- /a/ -- /t/), blend them into a word, and point to a picture representing that word – with nearly 90% scoring well above chance' (D.McGuinness. RRF messageboard)

Part and parcel of the 'brain glitch' theory is the unsubstantiated belief that children are biologically programmed to recognise written words as unanalysed wholes at first (a so-called logographic stage) and then, purely as a result of a biologically-driven developmental progression, are able to break written words into smaller and smaller units of sound: whole words ->syllables ->onset and rime ->phonemes; 'Children usually become able to break words down into their syllables at about 4 years of age, but phoneme-recognition does not emerge until later at about 5-6 years' (italics added.Poole. p4). Early Years academics who hold this belief in a 'biologically determined progression' insist that children need to receive reading instruction following this order too; going directly to the phoneme level is, they suggest, 'developmentally inappropriate', especially if the children are younger than six or seven, and could be 'dangerous'. There is no scientific evidence to back this theory. Many parents teach their pre-schoolers to read using synthetic phonics with no ill effects reported. Research in Germany (Wimmer/ Hummer) has shown that children do not go through a logographic stage when they are taught with the synthetic phonics method from the very start of reading instruction (RRF newsletter 45.p6 / D.McGuinness ERI p339-347)

http://www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID=16&n_issueNumber=45
Jennifer Chew: Analytic phonics makes a come-back - but where is synthetic phonics?

Phonological awareness training is not a necessary prerequisite to learning to read and spell. Phoneme sensitivity is innate as all babies need it in order to acquire spoken language, but they are not consciously aware of this ability. 'In fact, no one needs to be explicitly aware of phonemes unless they have to learn an alphabetic writing system' (D McGuinness LDLR p36) . People who have learnt to read using non-alphabetic scripts such as Chinese, which is based on the syllable unit of sound, lack phoneme awareness; studies 'show the strong impact of the type of writing system and type of instruction on the development of phonemic awareness -an environmental effect, and restates the point that you do not acquire this aptitude unless you need it' (D.McGuinness WCCR p135) The ease with which a child can be taught to consciously listen and unravel the phonemic level of speech in order to link each phoneme with its written symbol, appears to be heritable. 'Good/bad phoneme-awareness runs in families, just as musical talent does' (D.McGuinness WCCR p151) This unraveling is necessary because speech consists of co-articulated sounds blended into a rapidly produced sound stream. For those children who lack any natural aptitude for learning to consciously untangle the phoneme level of speech (due to normal genetic variation, NOT an incurable, genetic defect, 'dyslexia'), skilled, classroom synthetic phonics teaching on school entry, along with short, daily, one-to-one, 'keep-up' sessions, will enable them to learn the knowledge and skills necessary to become good readers.

Phoneme awareness occurs as a direct result of the teaching methods found in synthetic phonics programmes; it is the process of learning the letter-sound correspondences, translating the letters into sounds in words and vice-versa, which makes the phonemes explicit. '(T)he ability to manipulate speech sounds is a taught skill, not an outcome of cognitive maturation or exposure to language (Rice/Brooks p54) '(A)s their literacy improves it should again become an automatic process for literacy purposes and drop below consciousness unless it is actually needed to deal with an unfamiliar written word.'(Philpot. RRF messageboard)

''The NLS Searchlight [multi-cueing] was a political compromise to get whole language supporters on board when the original framework was drawn up. It seems so reasonable on the surface, a bit of phonics, a bit of look and say, a bit of whole word guessing, who could argue with that? Well, if you go on doing what you’ve always done, you’ll go on getting what you’ve always got, in this case 25 to 30 per cent of the children in your school unable to read properly. The long tail of underachievement in England is recognised in international studies. It was there before the NLS. The NLS was supposed to get rid of it. It’s still there, complete with gender gap and underachieving boys spawning a whole new cottage industry for advisors and publishers. In synthetic phonics schools there is no long tail of underachievement. There is no gender gap. Boys do not underachieve. Same kids — different teaching methodology.'' (Shadwell)

March 2006: The Rose Review recommended that the NLS 'searchlight' multi-cueing strategies should be dropped and replaced by the 'simple view of reading' and that all children should be taught to read using 'high quality phonics' [systematic synthetic phonics] taught discretely ( Rose Review p70). Ruth Kelly, Education Secretary at the time agreed and said, 'I accept all your recommendations and will ensure that they are implemented' (Kelly response to interim report 30/11/05) I am clear that synthetic phonics should be the first strategy in teaching all children to read'' (Times 21/03/06)

'(S)ynthetic' phonics is the form of systematic phonic work that offers the vast majority of beginners the best route to becoming skilled readers. Among other strengths, this is because it teaches children directly what they need to know...whereas other approaches, such as 'analytic' phonics, expect children to deduce them' (Rose Review. para 47) ‘Having considered a wide range of evidence the review concluded that the case for systematic phonic work is overwhelming and much strengthened by a synthetic approach’ (bold added. Rose Review. para 51)

It is stated clearly in the DfE's own synthetic phonics programme, Letters and Sounds, that the NLS multi-cueing strategies should no longer be used; '(A)ttention should be focused on decoding rather than on the use of unreliable strategies such as looking at the illustrations, rereading the sentence, saying the first sounds and guessing what might fit ... Children who routinely adopt alternative cues for reading unknown words, instead of learning to decode them, find themselves stranded when texts become more demanding and meanings less predictable. (L&S Guidance notes p.12)

December 2011: Responses to the pilot study of the Y1 synthetic phonics screening check revealed that nearly three-quarters of the teachers involved were still using the NLS searchlight multi-cueing strategies to teach children to read, rather than systematic synthetic phonics. This ratio is believed to be broadly in line with the picture across England’s primary schools.

The gender gap disappears when synthetic phonics is used and taught well. In the Clackmannanshire study, boys and girls in the synthetic phonics programme read well above expected levels, but the boys were ahead of the girls. (Johnston and Watson. 2005) When Sir Jim Rose closely examined synthetic phonics teaching, he found that, ''A common feature of the best work was that boys' progress and achievement did not lag behind girls: an important outcome given the generally weaker performance of boys, especially in writing.'' (Rose Review. para 57)

Rose Report 2006 -see pages 75-85 for coverage of the 'simple view of reading' https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFES-0201-2006

Note, that in the original paper on the Simple Model of Reading, the authors Gough and Tunmer wrote, 'To clarify the role of decoding in reading and reading disability, a simple model of reading is proposed, which holds that reading equals the product of decoding and comprehension.... we are reluctant to equate decoding with word recognition, for the term decoding surely connotes, if not denotes, the use of letter-sound correspondence rules' (italics added. 1986, Remedial & Special Education, Vol 7, No.1, 6-10) Unfortunately, in the Rose Report 2006, the phrase 'word recognition processes' was used instead of 'decoding' in the diagram illustrating the simple view of reading, and this was usually reduced to 'word recognition' throughout the following text.

The Simple View of Reading: R = DxC: Reading = Decoding grapheme-phoneme correspondence by GPC all-through-the-word (either consciously or sub-consciously sounding out) x spoken language Comprehension ability. This sounds 'simple' and straightforward (it is), but the academics who oppose synthetic phonics, and continue to lobby for a range of strategies, have taken the model and put forward an interpretation that fits with their view of reading. They insist that decoding English words must involve using different sizes of sound units, not just GPCs, along with the use of 'careful guessing from context' (Dombey. Guardian Comment 30/04/08): "Decoding must be seen to denote the identification of words typical of English texts, including irregular words such as ‘said’ and ‘island’. It should not be equated with synthetic phonics, which is inadequate as a decoding system for English. So it should be taken to involve ‘flexible unit size strategies’ (Brown and Deavers, 1999), and also morphology and semantics" (Dombey. p9)

The Simple View of Reading.
http://www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/documents/434/The%20Simple%20View%20of%20Reading.pdf

http://RoseReportExtracts.notlong.com
Extracts from the Rose Review.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/900/900we24.htm
The Committee on Science & Technology examines the evidence base of the Rose Report 2006.

The basic principles for teaching with synthetic / linguistic phonics:

- Don't ask children to memorise a whole-word sight vocabulary consisting of high frequency words.

- Don't ask children to predict (guess) words using picture, context or initial letter cues.

- Don't use look-say books, patterned-text books or 'real books' for beginning reading practice; use phonics decodable text and text that you have written to match their level of knowledge and skills.

- Don't waste time playing 'phonological awareness' games without letter shapes.

- Don't teach consonant initial and end clusters, word families or rhyming endings as these are sound units larger than the phoneme.

- Do teach fast, 3- 6 letter/sound correspondences a week.

- Do teach letter sounds, NOT letter names initially.

- Do focus on the skills of sounding out and blending all-through-the-written-word for reading and segmenting all-through-the-spoken word for spelling immediately after teaching the first 2-3 consonants plus a couple of vowels.

- Do introduce frequently used words which contain irregular spellings directly and systematically, emphasising the blending of the regular sounds whilst pointing out the irregular part.

- Do plan plenty of dictation activities with controlled letters and spellings.

- Do provide plenty of handwriting practice with a proper tripod pencil grip.

- Do develop language comprehension through a broad and rich literature curriculum.

http://www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID=34&n_issueNumber=46:
Six activities that make no difference whatsoever to reading and spelling success, and two activities that are actually related to worse reading and spelling achievement.

It has been established that knowledge of the alphabet letter names is one of the best predictors of later reading attainment, but those who, as a consequence of this information, advocate the early teaching of the names, are confusing correlation with causation. 'Experiments on letter-name training did not produce increased reading achievement' (Jenkins, Bausell, & Jenkins, 1972; Samuels, 1971) Dr. Solity, 'maintains that because 'teaching letter names is a redundant skill in both early reading and spelling', these should be introduced after children are fluent in applying sounds' (McLernon,Ferguson&Gardner p40) Experienced remedial tutors find that struggling readers, in particular, tend to use a strategy of mixing sounds and letter names when they try to decode. Do NOT teach or use the names of the letters of the alphabet (ay, bee, see, dee etc.) in the first stages of teaching reading to avoid any confusion between the names and sounds and adding unnecessarily to your child's memory load.

Why do we say teach letter sounds before letter names?
http://www.phonicsunlimited.com/page11/page11.html

UK-style synthetic phonic programmes recommend that the basic code GPCs should be introduced at the rate of about 3-6 a week. The initial sound-letter correspondences taught are those (commonly, s, a, t, i, p and n) that make up plenty of 2-3 letter words for early blending and segmenting practice and most easily avoid the 'schwa'. This is the extra 'uh' sound that it is difficult to avoid adding when saying the consonant sounds individually (consonant means 'together with') e.g. 'b'uh, 'j'uh (Macmillan p29). Do try to make individual sounds as 'pure' as possible when teaching them to your child. Note, that 'the sounds we model for the children are stylised versions of phonemes and not the phonemes as they actually occur in normally-spoken words' (Chew.RRF message board 12/11/09)

How to say the sounds:
http://www.focusonphonics.co.uk/sound.htm

At home, lessons should be short and done on a daily basis. That way your child should stay interested and achieve confidence by being able to read and write simple words independently within a very short time. Until your child can pull the letter shapes from memory and handwrite competently they should not be expected to do independent writing.

If your child has difficulties with blending then follow John Walker's (Sounds-Write) practical advice:
'If he can't blend three-sound words without help, get hold of a whiteboard or plain piece of paper, write the first word ‘sat’ on the whiteboard and say, “We’re going to read a word with three sounds in it. I want you to say the sounds and listen for the word.”
Now, guide him with your finger to say ‘s’ ‘a’ ‘t’ and he should be able to hear ‘sat’. It is important to use a sound at the beginning of the word that is a continuant – a sound you can hang on to and extend so that he can really hear it.
If he finds this difficult, control the exercise with your finger. Say to him, “I want you to say the sounds until my finger moves on to the next sound.” Now, under the <s>, let your finger linger so that he is saying ‘sssss’. Continue through the word.
You could also get him to run his finger under the word, getting you to say the sounds until his finger moves on. (Children do enjoy having this power over adults!) However, the point you’re making is that if you say sounds (precisely – ‘s’ not ‘suh’), you can hear what the word is.
After he’s read ‘sat’, make him write it and say the sounds as he writes. When he’s written it, he needs to read it back: ‘s’ ‘a’ ‘t’, ‘sat’.
When you’ve practised with lots of words beginning with continuants (‘f’, ‘l’, ‘m’, ‘n’, and so on), practise with words beginning with non-continuants, such as ‘b’, ‘t’, etc).
After that, move on to CVCC words like ‘film’, ‘nest’, ‘wept’. When he’s proficient (80% + successful), go on to CCVC words like ‘swim’, ’frog’, ‘slug’ and so on. Notice that all of these words contain sounds that you can hang on to. This should make it easy for him to hear what the word is.
After reading a word, always make him write, saying the sounds separately, before reading it back at the end'.

Synthetic phonics is not a simple panacea Miskin

There will always be a few children who, from the commencement of reading instruction, for a variety of reasons and for varying periods of time, will need very careful, synthetic phonics, one-to-one tutoring (in addition to whole class instruction) to enable them to learn how to read; prevention rather than intervention being the aim. If your child is slow to learn the skill of consciously hearing and manipulating phonemes (due to normal brain variation), finds blending difficult or has problems remembering which sounds and graphemes go together (paired-associate learning) then a slower pace than usual and plenty of practice and revision will be needed.

Beginning readers need to be shown how to sound out and blend (synthesise) all the GPCs from left to right throughout each word as they are reading, not just the initial letter sound, and discouraged from using any guessing strategies -cover the picture if it is causing your child to guess and only uncover once the page has been read.

It's important that children practise reading and spelling newly taught graphemes in different positions in words, not just in the 'initial letter' position. This is to teach them transitivity- the understanding that there is a consistent relationship between each phoneme and a letter across all positions in a word and across all words e.g. the letter t stands for the phoneme /t/ in the word ' top', /t/ in ‘tap’, /t/ in ‘bit', /t/ in street and the /t/ in 'nets'

The English Alphabet Code 'Key': a limited overview -includes examples of HFWs with singular or rare spellings to show how they fit into the code. The code is taught from sound to print. 'The 40 English phonemes are the basis for the code and never change. These 40 sounds provide a pivot point around which the code can reverse...The 40 sounds will always play fair even if our spelling system does not.' (D. McGuinness. Sound Steps to Reading. p5)

http://www.rrf.org.uk/pdf/DH%20Alph%20Code%20with%20teaching%20points%20PLAIN%20A4x7-1%20final%20version.pdf
Comprehensive Alphabet Code chart

Many of the most commonly used words (High Frequency Words/ HFW) in the English language, such as <come>, <pretty>, <their> and <people>, contain an unusual or 'unique spelling that is hard to decode without direct instruction' (D.McGuinness.ERI p 58) This can give the misleading impression that English is a very irregular, 'unphonetic' language and therefore teaching needs to include extensive, whole word memorisation. In actual fact, English spelling is highly regular (over 85% according to the experts). For a list of the approximately 100 HFWs with singular or rare spellings which need to taught directly and systematically using a phonics all-through-the word approach -see D.McGuinness. ERI p 58. ''Even the core of high frequency words which are not transparently decodable using known grapheme–phoneme correspondences usually contain at least one GPC that is familiar. Rather than approach these words as though they were unique entities, it is advisable to start from what is known and register the ‘tricky bit’ in the word. Even the word yacht, often considered one of the most irregular of English words [it's of Dutch origin], has two of the three phonemes represented with regular graphemes'' (L&S Notes of Guidance p16) . There are only nine HFWs words <one>, <once>, <two>, <who>, <the>, <are>, <of>, <here> and <eye>, that may need to be memorised as whole units i.e. are high frequency 'sight' words, though no English word is completely phonologically opaque.

The regularity of our written language
http://www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1976

The whole language advocates like to quote George Bernard Shaw's seemingly clever remark that the word fish could be spelled in English as ghoti. This quote actually reveals his and their ignorance of the English spelling code; 'There are NO examples of < gh > representing the sound ' f ' at the beginning of an English word. Traditional spelling 'rules' tend to be very unhelpful because exceptions to them often occur more frequently than the 'rules' themselves. However, in this case, we could construct a perfect rule: within English words that begin with the sound ' f ', that sound ' f ' is NEVER represented by the spelling < gh > at the beginning of the word! The single letter spelling < o > can represent several vowel sounds in English, but it only represents the sound ' i ' in one word, women. The two-letter spelling < ti > only represents the sound 'sh' in three English suffixes that date back to words derived from Latin, < -tion > < -tious > and < -tial >. There are NO examples of < ti > representing 'sh' in any other circumstances. There are, of course, words that end in < ti >, such as yeti, but in all those words the < t > and < i > are single-letter spellings, each of them representing one sound.' (Sounds-Write Lexicon p13)

A myth, disseminated by the whole language advocates, is that using synthetic phonics to teach reading leads to lower comprehension levels. This is absolutely not the case. The Clackmannanshire researchers Johnston and Watson say, 'Much is made of the fact that the synthetic phonics programme in Clackmannanshire led to much greater increases in word reading and spelling skill than in reading comprehension, implying that reading comprehension did not benefit from the intervention. However, it should be noted that at the end of the seventh year at school, reading comprehension in the study was significantly above age level, in a sample that had a below average SES (socio-economic status) profile' (RRF newsletter 59. p3) A follow up study by Johnston and Watson found that, 'The children in the Clackmannanshire study (taught by the synthetic phonics method) were reading words about two years ahead of what would be expected for their age. Their spelling was six months ahead of what you would expect for their age, and their reading comprehension was about right for age. However, although the pupils in England (taught by the NLS analytic method) from similar backgrounds were reading words about right for their age, their spelling was 4.5 months below what is expected for age, and reading comprehension was about seven months behind' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7147813.stm)

Another piece of mis-information, widely circulated by the whole language proponents, is that synthetic phonics teachers engage in the 'rather cruel' (Goouch/Lambirth p39) practice of withholding reading books from children until they have 'cracked the phonic code' (Hileryjane blog 27/01/10) Certainly, as the synthetic phonics method positively excludes the use of whole word memorisation and multi-cueing strategies, the early levels of whole language scheme books (Book Bands: pink, red, yellow blue and green), or 'real' books, are unsuitable for reading practice by beginning readers taught with the method. Happily, there are plenty of attractive, phonically decodable book schemes available nowadays that are designed to be accessible by beginning readers (or those having reading intervention) from the very earliest stages. Jenny Chew (contributor to 'Letters & Sounds') notes that, ''mixed methods' children do more independent reading of 'rich' literature in the early stages because they aren't limited to words that they can decode - they also know lots of 'sight' words and can guess from pictures and context''. But this is a hare and tortoise situation because, as Chew goes on to say, children taught using systematic synthetic phonics, ''quickly become better readers of 'rich' literature, and that as they can really read the words they are not dependent on guessing''(RRF message board)

Maggie Downie, who uses synthetic phonics for reading intervention at secondary level, explains, ''There is a world of difference between 'looking' at books and reading them. Synthetic phonics practitioners are just as concerned that children should enjoy a 'literature rich environment' as any of the balanced literacy/whole language advocates. All that they say is that children should not be expected to READ books which are beyond their current state of phonic knowledge. Giving children words to decode which are beyond their capability is something akin to expecting a beginning pianist to play a piano sonata before they have mastered the scales. Systematic phonics instruction is scaffolded learning; give the child words to read which it hasn't learnt the code for and you pull the scaffold away from under them, leaving them dangling helplessly with no option but to guess at the word. This confuses and scares children, and turns them off reading. I can't understand why anyone would want to do that.'' Phonics expert, Ruth Miskin, agrees, 'While we're teaching them this nightmare alphabetic code, we should give them simple books to read, but the richest books to hear' (Guardian 01/04/08)

In his 2006 review, Sir Jim Rose wrote, 'There is some force in the view that, as they learn to master the alphabetic code, children should be given reading material that is well within their reach in the form of 'decodable books'... Using such books as part of the phonic programme does not preclude other reading. Indeed it can be shown that such books help children develop confidence and an appetite for reading more widely.' (Rose Review. para 82)

Oct 2010: The DfE's revised set of criteria for synthetic phonics programmes includes new advice on early texts to practise reading: '(E)nsure that as pupils move through the early stages of acquiring phonics, they are invited to practise by reading texts which are entirely decodable for them, so that they experience success and learn to rely on phonemic strategies. It is important that texts are of the appropriate level for children to apply and practise the phonic knowledge and skills that they have learnt. Children should not be expected to use strategies such as whole-word recognition and/or cues from context, grammar, or pictures.'
http://dfe.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/pedagogy/teachingstyles/phonics/a0010240/criteria-for-assuring-high-quality-phonic-work

The vision of some struggling readers taught with mixed methods can be badly affected by stress and anxiety when they are asked to read aloud in public; they may complain about the letters 'moving and jumping around'. Part of the difficulty is the panicky search for clues (word-shape?initial letter?last letter?picture clue?word within word?context?...) rather than the consistent use of left to right all-through-the-word tracking when reading. Tom Burkard says, '(I)n 2000 we started using a cursor--a piece of card about the size of a business card, with a notch cut out of the upper left-hand corner. Since then, we haven't had a single problem with 'letters moving around' (RRF messageboard 21/2/06) ''It’s moved along, grapheme/phoneme correspondence by G/PC, if necessary, to cover up text that hasn’t yet been read. The child has no choice but to “read through the word.” Very clever. Like training wheels on a bicycle, the technique should be terminated as soon as the child “gets it.” But it’s a very useful aide to that end.'' (Schutz. RRF messageboard)

www.piperbooks.co.uk/documents/Notched_Card_Technique_000.pdf
Notched card technique.

The joy of teaching reading with synthetic phonics is that, after just a few months, many children will grasp the alphabetic principle and begin to self-teach (psychologists call this 'boot-strapping') and, unlike with the other methods, your child really will be able to read - can quickly decode most simple words and can usually work out any new, phonetically regular words they encounter. As a result they will be able to choose real books of their own choice from the library shelves, instead of being stuck with interminable reading scheme books with a restricted word count or muddling through, guessing many words in storybooks, with the resulting loss of comprehension and confidence.

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/pedagogy/a00197709/developing-a-new-year-1-phonics-screening-check
Y1 synthetic phonics screening check information and links.

Universities Council for the Education of Teachers guidance and support document for SSP in ITT:
http://www.tda.gov.uk/training-provider/itt/qts-standards-itt-requirements/guidance/qts-standards/knowledge-and-understanding/subjects-curriculum/~/media/4559307F06274C4AB0C53965FBC517B9.pdf

Interview with Ruth Miskin: 'People see me as the phonics lady and have lost sight of why I'm doing it'
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6108161

http://www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID=95&n_issueNumber=49
A prototype for teaching the English Alphabet Code by Professor Diane McGuinness.

John Walker corrects Michael Rosen's misconceptions regarding synthetic phonics.
http://literacyblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/wrong-stuff.html

http://www.phonicsinternational.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=215
Secret diary of a synthetic phonics teacher

www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?t=1835
Myths about Synthetic Phonics

http://eddie.idx.com.au/2006/88phonics.html
Sound sense. How learning to love synthetic phonics could revolutionise teachers’ working lives — to say nothing of the children’s!''

www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?t=1306
Synthetic Phonics:The Scientific Research Evidence.

http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/archive07/stockall.pdf
Time Well Spent: Phonemic awareness training or paired associate learning for children with language impairments?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383
The Clackmannanshire study: A Seven Year Study of the Effects of Synthetic Phonics Teaching on Reading and Spelling Attainment

http://www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID=170&n_issueNumber=59
Fact and Fiction about the Clackmannanshire study.

http://www.rrf.org.uk/pdf/rhona_ppt.pdf
Rhona Johnston's ppt. on the Clackmannanshire study

www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?t=3785
A Comparison of Results for Synthetic Phonics and Other Reading Programmes

http://www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID=158&n_issueNumber=57
Phonics: The Holy Grail of Reading. Jenny Chew explains the relationship between Decoding and Comprehension.

http://www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/documents/434/The%20Simple%20View%20of%20Reading.pdf
Simple View of Reading

DfE. December 2011:
Evidence paper - The Importance of Phonics

The regularity of our written language
http://www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1976

www.multilit.com.au/Portals/24/docs_public/published_papers/MULTILIT_SMH_20031004.pdf
War of the Words.

Many educational academics remain vehemently opposed to synthetic phonics (Wyse. Rose Tinted Spectacles ppt) and continue to campaign against the 2006 Rose Report's conclusions and recommendations (Wyse/Styles.Editorial) Although they concede that teaching reading using synthetic phonics 'can be extremely effective' in transparent languages (Wyse/Goswami p693), in their opinion, there is still 'not enough evidence' that the 'discrete', (synthetic) phonics method is more effective for teaching reading in English than 'contextualised' phonics that, due to their progressive ideology, they prefer. They have consistently failed to provide any empirical evidence to support their opinions and preferences regarding the teaching of early reading. Nevertheless, they want infant teachers to ignore the government's post-Rose report directive for synthetic phonics to be used as the 'prime approach' for the teaching of early reading.

The academics cherry-picked two particular publications, from the extensive range of evidence that the Rose report team considered, to back their argument. They singled out the American National Reading Panel (NRP) report and the DCSF commissioned Torgerson et al research review (Wyse/Goswami p693) because these publications tied in with their ideology, having as their conclusion that there was no strong evidence, 'that any one form of systematic phonics is more effective than another'. The Torgerson et al review, correctly, carried little weight with the Rose report team. The reasons for this are well explained in a report by Parliament's Committee on Science & Technology, produced after they had examined the evidence base of the Rose report -see paras.22,23,24: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/900/900we24.htm

Professor Diane McGuinness, a cognitive scientist trained in statistical analysis, also examined both publications closely. See http://dyslexics.org.uk/comment.pdf for her Torgerson et al analysis, and her book, 'Early Reading Instruction' Chapter 4, for a comprehensive analysis of the NRP report. For an additional critique of the NRP report see http://www.nrrf.org/article_anderson6-18-00.htm

As a matter of fact, evidence of the superiority of synthetic phonics was already available in the early 1980s; back then, Prof. Jeanne Chall noted that, ''The current research also suggests that some advantage may accrue to direct as compared to indirect phonics. It would seem that many of the characteristics of direct phonics, such as teaching letter-sounds directly, separating the letter-sounds from the words, giving practice in blending the sounds, and so forth are more effective than the less direct procedures used in current analytic phonics programmes'' (Chall. Learning to Read: the great debate.1983 p43)

As part of their mission to overturn the new synthetic phonics initiative, the same educational academics attempted to subvert the Clackmannanshire empirical research study because this study, unlike the Torgerson et al.review and NRP report, concluded that, 'synthetic phonics was a more effective approach to teaching reading, spelling and phonemic awareness than analytic phonics' (Johnston and Watson, 2004 p351) . This excellent study played a large part in persuading the DCSF to introduce synthetic phonics as the primary method to teach reading. The academics disseminated myths and misinformation about the Clackmannanshire research -see the RRF newsletter article, 'Fact and Fiction about the Clackmannanshire study', which also includes comment on the Torgerson et al review: http://www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID=170&n_issueNumber=59
......................................................................................................................

Postscript: Marilyn Jager Adams wrote the foreword for the last book written by the late Jeanne Chall (Professor of Education at Harvard University, outstanding academic researcher and staunch advocate for synthetic phonics) Marilyn Jager Adams wrote, 'Many years later, when I was given the task of reviewing the research on phonics, Chall told me that if I wrote the truth, I would lose old friends and make new enemies. She warned me that I would never again be fully accepted by my academic colleagues'. Adams continues, 'as the evidence in favor of systematic, explicit phonics instruction for beginners increased so too did the vehemence and nastiness of the backlash. The goal became one of discrediting not just the research, but the integrity and character of those who had conducted it.' (Chall p.vi)

©