Ethics Education Policy and Research: Sue Ellis Scotland
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:18 pm
Links from the University of Strathclyde site:
http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/20642/ ... 020642.pdf
Most interestingly, the first paper goes into considerable detail about the responses of teachers and headteachers to the various literacy and phonics initiatives funded in Scotland and, in contrast, there is a total lack of mentioning the role of teachers and headteachers in actually driving the phonics initiative forwards in England - leading to government policy.
Instead, the essence of the second paper is about Government policy implementation in England forced upon universities and schools and Nick Gibb's central role in promoting systematic synthetic phonics largely on the basis of the Clackmannanshire findings -and the dangers inherent in political point-scoring.
What the authors of the second paper fail to fully understand or acknowledge is that it was teachers and headteachers who, through their years of experience, pushed for the need for phonics teaching in schools, doing their utmost to provide their statistical findings, which led to the governmental inquiries in England followed by the independent Rose Review!
Also, that it was people working with actual phonics programmes and recommended practices (particularly Jolly Phonics and then Sound Discovery, Ruth Miskin's work and programmes, Sounds-Write and the work of Jonathan Solity using the ERR practices) who played a huge part in driving forwards the need for phonics teaching in contrast to the multi-cueing reading strategies which were then promoted via the National Literacy Strategy 'Searchlights' model. Thus - these were educationalists in the truest sense - practising in real classrooms with, of course, a wide variety of learners as there always are in every setting. These same people were also mindful of the wider body of research on reading instruction - and not just Clackmannanshire.
In other words, we have a very partial picture, or understanding, of the events and their contributory factors in England, provided via the second paper above.
The second paper is clearly presented as an 'academic' paper - and contrasts in style somewhat from the first paper which goes to some lengths to detail the role that teachers themselves played in collaborating about their work.
Further, there is inaccuracy and, I think, a considerable lack of understanding and a lack of the variety of issues which led to the formal promotion of systematic synthetic phonics in England as presented in these papers.
Nick Gibb who is mentioned a great deal particularly in the second paper, for example, was very clear that he wanted the phonics agenda to be a 'cross party' issue. My impression has always been, (and yes this is a personal view but gained with good justification) that Nick Gibb is not involved in the promotion of phonics as political point-scoring as seems to be implied when noting the dangers of politicians becoming involved with education policy. He actually cares that all children are taught well.
Prior to the formal promotion of phonics courses required for teacher-training, I would suggest that the context in England in the universities was generally remiss in that it was 'hit and miss' whether student-teachers received much training or any training at all in teaching the alphabetic code and phonics skills.
Urgent and strong action was required to ensure that student-teachers received the kind of knowledge and understanding to teach the English alphabetic code and phonics skills required for both reading and spelling that a body of research already highlighted as the most effective content and approach. Indeed, the Simple View of Reading given much emphasis in the Rose Report, and largely adopted since the Rose Report, was not a new concept - it was introduced around 1986 twenty years prior to the Rose Review!
At the heart of all this is the children themselves.
How can the promotion of something so fundamentally important as phonics teaching and yet which was so lacking, or minimal, in many of our early years and infant settings - and for older learners as required - cause so much adult protest?
Whereas much attention is placed on the Clackmannanshire research and its effect on governmental inquiries and subsequent policy, the reality is that in addition to this research there was already some outstanding classroom findings from systematic synthetic (or linguistic) phonics teaching, some more long-standing phonics programmes and some embryonic phonics programmes and practices - being drawn to the attention of politicians including Nick Gibb.
Not only that, attention needed to be drawn to the lack of evidence for the promotion of multi-cueing reading strategies as encapsulated in the then 'Searchlights' reading model of the National Literacy Strategy rolled out with considerable clout in 1998-9. Ironically, Dr Laura Huxford is cited repeatedly in the papers above and yet she was at the heart of the NLS and the subsequently discredited 'Searchlights' model - that is a model not based in research. To this day, a multi-cueing approach may well be so entrenched in the teaching profession that it may be impossible to ever achieve the kind of systematic synthetic phonics approach recommended officially.
In other words, it WAS teachers and headteachers 'at the chalkface' driving forwards the investigations and providing plenty of evidence of the need for quality phonics teaching - a state of affairs which is notably missing as a factor in the second paper. I should know because I was one of them!
When Sir Jim Rose and his team of inspectors went to visit various schools using different approaches to inform the Rose Review, Rose and his inspectors could not ignore what they could see first-hand in real schools, with real teachers and real children - the contrast between the SSP schools and the multi-cueing or mixed methods schools.
The subsequent promotion of phonics programmes and practices, and aspects such as the need for 'fidelity to programme' has come about not only because of a body of research, including Clackmannanshire, but also because of the reality of genuine 'best practice' as evidenced by its outcomes with real children in England itself.
This is such a serious issue, and the best phonics practice is so incredibly important and impressive, that all the detractors and protestors really do need to fully appreciate the bigger picture. Imagine how amazing it would be if the many indignant adults could somehow see things from a different perspective.
And does Sue Ellis not consider that teachers in schools post the SSP promotion in England also enjoy collaboration, continuing professional development, and call upon people such as Lesley Robertson for advice as described in the first paper above?
There is not a day goes by, for example, when someone (and frequently more than one person) contacts me for some discussion, guidance or support - teachers, parents, tutors, headteachers, researchers, even learners themselves. Scotland does not have a monopoly on collegial collaboration and support. I am sure this is the case for other people in the field.
Do people such as Sue Ellis value teachers' experiences confirmed by research findings - which includes teachers who have gone on to develop phonics programme such as myself - or not?
There is far more to this field than formal research alone.
You see, there was an imperative to get quality phonics teacher-training into the universities in England - because the student-teachers deserve no less.
And there was, and remains, an imperative to get quality phonics teaching into all schools - because the children deserve no less.
It is so important that we teach the alphabetic code of the English language well (because why wouldn't we - it is the code of the language's writing system and it is the most complex alphabetic code in the world) - and so important that we teach the phonics skills of decoding for reading and encoding for spelling well.
Phonics teaching cannot be left to any form of 'chance' - and if some politicians have helped to improve the teacher-training of student-teachers and CPD and brought about the widespread use of systematic phonics programmes and practices - well done to them. They have actually discharged their duty.
To me, it's that simple an issue.
http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/20642/ ... 020642.pdf
Policy and research: Lessons from the Clackmannanshire Synthetic Phonics Initiative
SUE ELLIS University of Strathclyde, Scotland
Abstract This article explores why policy makers in England and Scotland responded so differently to the Clackmannanshire study on synthetic phonics. It suggests that a deeper understanding of the national and local policy contexts can explain Scotland’s response. Analysis of the wider context of the Clackmannanshire initiative supports Moss and Huxford’s (2007) argument that literacy problems cannot be couched within a single paradigm’s field of reference, and that policy makers need to consider evidence from different paradigms if they are to make robust decisions.
Both these papers refer to the Clackmannanshire research and the differences in responses between the governmental education departments in Scotland and England.Ethics, education policy and research : the phonics question reconsidered
Susan Ellis
Gemma Moss
This paper argues that direct control of the early years literacy curriculum recently exercised by politicians in England has made the boundaries between research, policy and practice increasingly fragile. It describes how policy came to focus most effort on the use of synthetic phonics programmes in the early years. It examines why the Clackmannanshire phonics intervention became the study most frequently cited to justify government policy and suggests a phonics research agenda that could more usefully inform teaching. It argues that, whilst academics cannot control how their research is eventually used by policymakers, learned societies can strengthen their ethics policies to set out clearer ground-rules for academic researchers working across knowledge domains and with policymakers. A stronger framework to guide the ethical interpretation of research evidence in complex education investigations would allow more meaningful conversations to take place within and across research communities, and with research users. The paper suggests some features for such a framework.
https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/files/ ... final.docx
Most interestingly, the first paper goes into considerable detail about the responses of teachers and headteachers to the various literacy and phonics initiatives funded in Scotland and, in contrast, there is a total lack of mentioning the role of teachers and headteachers in actually driving the phonics initiative forwards in England - leading to government policy.
Instead, the essence of the second paper is about Government policy implementation in England forced upon universities and schools and Nick Gibb's central role in promoting systematic synthetic phonics largely on the basis of the Clackmannanshire findings -and the dangers inherent in political point-scoring.
What the authors of the second paper fail to fully understand or acknowledge is that it was teachers and headteachers who, through their years of experience, pushed for the need for phonics teaching in schools, doing their utmost to provide their statistical findings, which led to the governmental inquiries in England followed by the independent Rose Review!
Also, that it was people working with actual phonics programmes and recommended practices (particularly Jolly Phonics and then Sound Discovery, Ruth Miskin's work and programmes, Sounds-Write and the work of Jonathan Solity using the ERR practices) who played a huge part in driving forwards the need for phonics teaching in contrast to the multi-cueing reading strategies which were then promoted via the National Literacy Strategy 'Searchlights' model. Thus - these were educationalists in the truest sense - practising in real classrooms with, of course, a wide variety of learners as there always are in every setting. These same people were also mindful of the wider body of research on reading instruction - and not just Clackmannanshire.
In other words, we have a very partial picture, or understanding, of the events and their contributory factors in England, provided via the second paper above.
The second paper is clearly presented as an 'academic' paper - and contrasts in style somewhat from the first paper which goes to some lengths to detail the role that teachers themselves played in collaborating about their work.
Further, there is inaccuracy and, I think, a considerable lack of understanding and a lack of the variety of issues which led to the formal promotion of systematic synthetic phonics in England as presented in these papers.
Nick Gibb who is mentioned a great deal particularly in the second paper, for example, was very clear that he wanted the phonics agenda to be a 'cross party' issue. My impression has always been, (and yes this is a personal view but gained with good justification) that Nick Gibb is not involved in the promotion of phonics as political point-scoring as seems to be implied when noting the dangers of politicians becoming involved with education policy. He actually cares that all children are taught well.
Prior to the formal promotion of phonics courses required for teacher-training, I would suggest that the context in England in the universities was generally remiss in that it was 'hit and miss' whether student-teachers received much training or any training at all in teaching the alphabetic code and phonics skills.
Urgent and strong action was required to ensure that student-teachers received the kind of knowledge and understanding to teach the English alphabetic code and phonics skills required for both reading and spelling that a body of research already highlighted as the most effective content and approach. Indeed, the Simple View of Reading given much emphasis in the Rose Report, and largely adopted since the Rose Report, was not a new concept - it was introduced around 1986 twenty years prior to the Rose Review!
At the heart of all this is the children themselves.
How can the promotion of something so fundamentally important as phonics teaching and yet which was so lacking, or minimal, in many of our early years and infant settings - and for older learners as required - cause so much adult protest?
Whereas much attention is placed on the Clackmannanshire research and its effect on governmental inquiries and subsequent policy, the reality is that in addition to this research there was already some outstanding classroom findings from systematic synthetic (or linguistic) phonics teaching, some more long-standing phonics programmes and some embryonic phonics programmes and practices - being drawn to the attention of politicians including Nick Gibb.
Not only that, attention needed to be drawn to the lack of evidence for the promotion of multi-cueing reading strategies as encapsulated in the then 'Searchlights' reading model of the National Literacy Strategy rolled out with considerable clout in 1998-9. Ironically, Dr Laura Huxford is cited repeatedly in the papers above and yet she was at the heart of the NLS and the subsequently discredited 'Searchlights' model - that is a model not based in research. To this day, a multi-cueing approach may well be so entrenched in the teaching profession that it may be impossible to ever achieve the kind of systematic synthetic phonics approach recommended officially.
In other words, it WAS teachers and headteachers 'at the chalkface' driving forwards the investigations and providing plenty of evidence of the need for quality phonics teaching - a state of affairs which is notably missing as a factor in the second paper. I should know because I was one of them!
When Sir Jim Rose and his team of inspectors went to visit various schools using different approaches to inform the Rose Review, Rose and his inspectors could not ignore what they could see first-hand in real schools, with real teachers and real children - the contrast between the SSP schools and the multi-cueing or mixed methods schools.
The subsequent promotion of phonics programmes and practices, and aspects such as the need for 'fidelity to programme' has come about not only because of a body of research, including Clackmannanshire, but also because of the reality of genuine 'best practice' as evidenced by its outcomes with real children in England itself.
This is such a serious issue, and the best phonics practice is so incredibly important and impressive, that all the detractors and protestors really do need to fully appreciate the bigger picture. Imagine how amazing it would be if the many indignant adults could somehow see things from a different perspective.
And does Sue Ellis not consider that teachers in schools post the SSP promotion in England also enjoy collaboration, continuing professional development, and call upon people such as Lesley Robertson for advice as described in the first paper above?
There is not a day goes by, for example, when someone (and frequently more than one person) contacts me for some discussion, guidance or support - teachers, parents, tutors, headteachers, researchers, even learners themselves. Scotland does not have a monopoly on collegial collaboration and support. I am sure this is the case for other people in the field.
Do people such as Sue Ellis value teachers' experiences confirmed by research findings - which includes teachers who have gone on to develop phonics programme such as myself - or not?
There is far more to this field than formal research alone.
You see, there was an imperative to get quality phonics teacher-training into the universities in England - because the student-teachers deserve no less.
And there was, and remains, an imperative to get quality phonics teaching into all schools - because the children deserve no less.
It is so important that we teach the alphabetic code of the English language well (because why wouldn't we - it is the code of the language's writing system and it is the most complex alphabetic code in the world) - and so important that we teach the phonics skills of decoding for reading and encoding for spelling well.
Phonics teaching cannot be left to any form of 'chance' - and if some politicians have helped to improve the teacher-training of student-teachers and CPD and brought about the widespread use of systematic phonics programmes and practices - well done to them. They have actually discharged their duty.
To me, it's that simple an issue.